The Classic Strawman: But 47% Don't Pay Taxes!

Instead of pissing away the next hour on this forum, Google it yourself and get educated.

 

The point you're missing is that money, even currency for that matter, doesn't need to be debt.

Lincoln issued interest free United States notes. Even that would be preferable to today's corrupt system designed to enrich the banksters and their government cronies.

It proves you're wrong. You simply cannot reason well enough to notice truth.

Interest payments are still at manageable levels because interest rates are at close to zero. The key point you left out though is that the national debt continues to climb - this means interest payments will have to rise regardless if rates rise or not. Also, economic growth and GDP are down, and cannot recover to sustainable levels with this much debt holding them down.

It's only a matter of time. But, please, go put all of your money in 30 year U.S. Treasury notes. Please.

The only one lying is you. They are no longer buying any long term treasuries. They know they'll be worthless.

"But over the last 12 months, for the first time in a decade, China stopped adding to its position. While they continue to roll over some maturing positions, overall holdings are flat."

It’s also not a diversification strategy, as China’s sovereign investments are well diversified with treasuries accounting for one third of assets. Rather, it appears China has reached its appetite for U.S. government debt

Right - and they're not going to increase. They can't without absorbing too much tax revenue. The yields will remain low until we either default on the debt or experience hyperinflation and the whole system comes down.

 

Interest free money issued by the United States is still debt. All money is debt. It's simply a claim on goods and services. The way it is issued through debt simply allows the monetary control that they want.

Wrong about what?

Who cares. Interest rates to GDP are at an all time low. Unemployment is a much bigger problem then future interest rate expenses, lol. You are just anti-Govt and doing whatever possible to make your case. If you can't even get it passed this ridiculous forum, why do you think anyone in the real world would take you seriously? Embarrassing!

The point is the mathematical flaw theory you talked about doesn't exist, and the fact that we do issue more debt is simply a function of our growing economy. The debt will always grow, focus on things that actually matter in your life, rather than the national debt, lol.

They don't even sell those any more I don't think.

You are simply making up hypothetical examples of what "could" happen. Take the tin foil hat off and try to take an objective look to the country instead of trying as hard as possible to blame the Govt for your problems, while at the same time making yourself look like a fool.

 

I'm no expert, but according to webster:

so·cial·ism
noun \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Definition of SOCIALISM

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done​

The most common way the concept of socialism seems to enter political discussions these days is when folks try to draw a clear line between private property and what the state can claim to meet it's needs. Like free speech, the real test of private property is respecting it when the speech (or private ownership) conflicts with other goals or beliefs. Convenient respect, is no respect at all.

The man who will stand up for the most heinous example of free speech, believes in allowing ideas to be expressed freely. The one who supports free speech only when he likes what he's hearing... well he just believes in the freedom to say the things that he likes hearing.

Likewise, the man who believes private property should be respected even when the consequences are dire, respects private property. Someone who claims to respect private ownership only when society can afford it... this person is advocating a system in which there is no real private property. This person is a socialist.

 

Immoral is in the eye of the beholder.

But let's just say, for the sake of argument (not that I believe it is possible), that most of those poor people were able to scrimp, save, and eventually gain job skills in the in-demand fields. What do you think would happen?

I would think those jobs would end up having more employees than needed, And thus their pay would drop to the same levels as people are making now. This makes all of their hard work and sacrifices worthless, as they have spent time and money and are no better off then they were before. They may even be worse off, as they suffered for nothing.

And, if you want to be realistic, many would not be able to get these job skills. Real life has a way of making progress very difficult, if not impossible. Lack of money, time, effort, etc. Some factors are the fault of the person, some are not.

But regardless of if a person manages to improve their lot in life or not, they are still going to do whatever they can to live, in my opinion. Lack of money or education just means that in order to live, they have to resort to anything they CAN do in order to improve their lives.

Either make education much more affordable and jobs more demanded, or don't complain when those greedy, lazy poor people resort to violence and theft (which may be the only option they are capable of) to get what they want.

If people want to make changes to avoid the widespread violence and looting, they better start making changes soon. The number of poor and angry people is already far greater than the number of rich, and increasing every day.

Thank you for your time.

 

I think there is a lot of truth in what you are saying. I respect the honesty of removing claims of morality from the argument and expressing the demands of the unaccomplished to be given "what they want" at the threat of violence as the simple extortion that it is.

Your point is valid. Hungry people will demand food, not because they are morally entitled to be taken care of the rest of us, but because they will not passively starve. I imagine I might do the same in dire circumstances. I'm less sympathetic to those who would loot or commit violence, not for food, but for lifestyles that include cell phones and cable TV. But the reality is those folks exist as well (and out number the starving substantially).

Balanced against this is the consideration that those you call 'rich' (the new n-word) also have wants and have limits as to how much they will give in the service of the tyrant masses. The 10% already paying for 70% of what federal income tax provides us also have a limit to how far they can be pushed. While they may not be as many in number, they have demonstrated they can accomplish more.

If we remove the issue of 'right' from the discussion and stop worrying about either side being fair to the other... well, I fear we have yet to learn the true meaning of the phrase class warfare. In the conflict you predict I'm not sure numbers alone will determine who -- if any -- will win.

 

Truthfully, Which ever 'side' wins the war is irrelevant, as we will all lose in that situation.

The thing that irritates me is when people praise those huge corporate executives, many of whom have made questionably unethical decisions to make their wealth, and then tell the poor if they want to be rich, they should do the same.

Never mind the fact that the their economy would be impossible to maintain if everyone behaved like a corporate executive, or the fact that there would be no 'victims' for them to make their money off of.

The fact is, Some people simply do not want to behave like that. Some people just want to work their 40 hour workweek job, come home, play with the kids, and spend time with their spouses. They do not necessarily want to become rich, they just want to maintain their steady, middle-class lifestyle.

In the end, however, they will not be able to. Because of the greed of a few (relatively) their quality of life will slowly be eroded away. Honesty, kindness, politeness, and hard work are less effective in making money these days than having connections, taking advantages, doing whatever needs to be done regardless of weather it is morally right or not.

How can anyone with half a brain expect the majority of people in this country to adapt? When they don't have the money, time, or drive to do so? And do you really think they will crawl into a ditch and die? I don't. Personally, I'm not nearly as willing to sacrifice myself unless EVERYONE else is REQUIRED to sacrifice as well. Start at the top and work your way down. We either ALL stand or fall together.

Thank you for your time.

 

They mean federal income taxes. Its pretty easy if you just think about it.

 

When folks suggest that those who want to get ahead emulate the successful, I think they're talking about innovation, creating enterprise, or just producing results ... I think you're mistaken in believing they are advocating questionable decisions.

I also think you're mistaken in your belief that success requires victims.

As far as some folks not wanting to offer enterprise, innovation, or results and instead simply wanting to "work their 40 hour workweek job" and still enjoy a middle class lifestyle... yea, they are going to be disappointed. As a nation, we need more.

Fifty years ago simple labor was more valuable. Even the guy standing at a counter for 40 hours a week asking 'do you want fries with that' was making a valuable contribution. A middle class lifestyle now costs more than it did then. People want smart phones and flat screen TVs, they have health care options that didn't exist 50 years ago, better appliances, vehicles, and internet access... but the guy at the counter doing the same thing? He can't afford the median lifestyle anymore. It's not because he's working less hours, it's not because of the greed of the few, it's because the many have asked for more and that more is now a part of a median lifestyle. And that more ... well, requires more.

If you don't have a willingness to sacrifice; or offer innovation, enterprise or take responsibility for delivering results; if you lack the drive to succeed and don't want to do anything more that show up 40 hours as week to do what you're told. That's OK. No one is expecting you to adapt; no one is requiring you to sacrifice; I won't even suggest you emulate those who do succeed. Neither do I feel responsible for delivering to you a lifestyle you aren't paying for.

We don't all move as one. If you don't want to do what's necessary to move ahead, I don't feel responsible for doing more to carry you forward.

 

And that is your right, to not feel responsible for doing more to carry others forward. Nothing at all wrong with it. And I agree with you, to a point. I wouldn't want to carry anyone that refuses to do ANY work, and expects to live a good life while contributing nothing.

However, I also understand that realistically, not everyone can contribute equally. I also realize that what constitutes a contribution may differ in the opinions of different people. Sorry to have to say this, but I can't expect the majority of Americans to become doctors, nurses, electricians, etc. at this time. Maybe with future generations, if we redo and upgrade our education structure to raise our educational standards tremendously.

So, that means that there are going to be GENERATIONS of poor, unable to adapt Americans. I just can't see things getting to the point where there are masses of people living, and later starving, homeless on the streets. America as a country will not allow things to 'devolve' to that level. Thus, there are a few solutions.

One is to let things go on as they are. This will eventually cause emotions to escalate to the point of bloody, violent revolution when political attempts to restore the balance fail to pass because of the fact that the rich own the government. The have-nots will mass together, acquire or steal weapons, and proceed to kill the rich and redistribute the wealth. They may succeed, they may not. A lot of people will die or be maimed in the process. Obviously not an ideal solution, to say the least.

Another option is to escalate things quickly. This could be done by getting rid of those pesky environmental regulations and workers rights laws. Many feel this would encourage employers to relocate to the United States and create jobs. Granted, those jobs would pay a paltry sum that would not be able to allow anyone above the poverty level to sustain their lifestyles. I am not sure how the government would get enough support for this option, in my opinion.

A third option is the massive redistribution of wealth. Take from the rich and give to the poor, literally. People say the rich will leave. That may be the case, but remember, they can't take everything with them. At the very least, they would have to leave their land in the US behind. This may also create opportunities for those that have business savvy, but no opportunities, to start their own businesses to replace the ones that would leave when the taxation and redistribution gets to be too much for them. This option has a much better chance to happen (the masses are made of the poor, after all), but seriously infringes on freedom and peoples rights.

In my opinion, I feel a 'middle of the road' solution will be the only way that can save us, We need to make education and job training (such as electricians, plumbers, etc.) either completely free, or as low of a cost to a person as possible. We need to offer incentives to encourage people to take advantage of this education, and assistance as NEEDED (IE: Housing, Child Care, Health Care, etc.) to assist people to make sure they actually complete their retraining.

I would also like to see a universal health-care plan put in place to make sure ALL Americans can get healthcare without bankrupting them. Note I said universal, not free. Premiums would be based on ability to pay (true ability to pay, if a person can afford a ton of luxuries, they can afford healthcare).

Any of these changes needs to be restricted to those that will not abuse the system. Of course, I realize it would be impossible to eliminate all of the waste and abuse. However, I would like to see restrictions and regulations put in place to reduce waste and abuse as much as possible.

And yes, this would require a massive influx of money. And yes, most of this would have to come from taxes on the rich and well off (they are the only ones that actually have the money to afford this). To those that would decry my idea as tyranny and immoral, That's okay. Just remember, you can't kill them all. And even if you do, then who would you employ to increase your profits? Who would be left to buy your products or services?

Thank you for your time.

 

Paying any taxes, even general taxes is sufficient for any person in our republic.

 

No its not.

Because not all taxes go to the same places.

By what your saying, I shouldn't pay income taxes if I don't feel like it because I pay taxes on gasoline.

 

It doesn't matter where taxes go; taxes are taxes. Simply paying taxes entitles a person to the privileges and immunities of civil persons in our republic. Simply claiming only certain taxes are valid is a form of special pleading; which is usually considered a fallacy.

 

We are talking about federal income taxes. not everyone pays them.

When you have a system where 50% of the country doesn't pay federal income taxes, that makes the other 50% economically enslaved by those who do not pay.

 

The incentive is in creating equity for yourself. When renting you are simply paying someone else's equity for them. Stop whining. What...are we a nation of whiners now?

 

They've never accomplished a thing. The accomplishments they take credit for are actually done by the people that work for them.

 

Doing what you're told and demanding a wage in return is not much of an accomplishment. *shrug* But if those salarymen are in fact able to accomplish so much, there is no reason to not ask them to do the same for themselves -- and pay an equal tax.

 

That's ridiculous. That's like ignoring the driver of the winning car in the Indy 500.

 

Time for a 41st knot. I'll call it "Palos' tortured logic knot".

 

Giving out money and demanding work in return is less of an accomplishment.

Maybe we can talk once they get equal service from the government. But since the government would have to start waging wars on behalf of ordinary people, rather than just the wealthy, I don't think that's going to happen.

 

No, it's like ignoring the person that paid the driver.

 

I assure you, the driver would not want the person who paid him ignored. He would never have DRIVEN if there were no such person.

Either way, it destroys your attempt at a point.

 

Simply claiming only federal income taxes are being paid or not being paid is a form of special pleading since it doesn't involve all taxes paid. Special pleading is usually considered a fallacy.

 

The only ones torturing logic are those involved in special pleading who are trying to make a relevant point and a relevant argument; unfortunately, special pleading is usually considered a fallacy.

Taxes are taxes. Anyone paying taxes in our republic should not be denied or disparaged in their privileges and immunities as civil persons.

If federal payroll taxes are not being included, how accurate is the argument and point of view, of those of the opposing view point?

 

People who pay no federal income tax, pay nothing for the services federal income tax provides.