mcavoy33
Seasoned Expediter
But you just finished saying you take all the legal deductions that your entitled to above, why wouldn't you take this one if it was the new law?
Was His Death A Wake-Up Call?
- Thread starter copdsux
- Start date
But you just finished saying you take all the legal deductions that your entitled to above, why wouldn't you take this one if it was the new law?
mcavoy33
Seasoned Expediter
Well if his empire is that big and he's not managing to pay taxes, that's pretty impressive
So its alright to offend me?
You said it, not me
Greg: yes, they lived in a time of stricter class consciousness, when slaves and women didn't have any rights, but still, the whole idea behind 'no taxation without representation' was to express the belief that having the power to do it [tax the colonists or eliminate people's livelihoods in order to promote one's own best interests] didn't make it right - it was about at least a semblance of fairness. It was about King George's [actually, his councillors] refusal to see that taking so much from one's 'subjects' that they can't provide a decent life for their families was intolerable - they weren't willing to live in poverty to feed his ambitions any longer.
And the SC's decision was flat out wrong - not the first or last time it's happened, either.
And the SC's decision was flat out wrong - not the first or last time it's happened, either.
I guess I'll just go to bed & die. This country is full of people, like Amonger, that live on the fringes and throw things at folks inside the circle. I'd like to find out his reaction if a loved one, or himself, contracted a terminal illness Terminal being defined as an illness or condition that can be reasonably expected to end in death, within 24 months(according to my life policy). I fit that definition.
Each month, monies are deducted from my Social Security check to pay my Medicare premium. I also have a supplemental policy to cover the 20% that the government doesn't. And another policy for prescription coverage.
So, yeah, I guess I'm a thief.
Mike(Perhaps to soon be know as inmate #OU812!)
Each month, monies are deducted from my Social Security check to pay my Medicare premium. I also have a supplemental policy to cover the 20% that the government doesn't. And another policy for prescription coverage.
So, yeah, I guess I'm a thief.
Mike(Perhaps to soon be know as inmate #OU812!)
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
False. SS is, and was from the beginning, a Ponzi scheme, an indisputable fact that I have proven on this very forum on more than one occasion. It is, therefore, ipso facto, theft. The money stolen from you goes to pay off people who are currently collecting stolen proceeds, and if it's still paying out when you decide to take stolen loot, it will have been confiscated from the people who earned it the month before you took your cut. And in the end, like every other Ponzi scheme, it's the last suckers who end up with nothing. Perhaps you've heard the correct summation of social security, that if anyone other than the government ran it, they'd have been put in jail for it long ago.
That part, you got right. And people are sinners. Bastiat, after coming to America to observe us before writing his tome _The Law_, said, "Democracy is that form of government by which everybody attempts to live at the expense of everybody else." People haven't changed since then.
No, the law of the jungle is "WHATEVER'S YOURS IS MINE IF I CAN TAKE IT FROM YOU." And that's what a mugger does when you walk by the wrong alley, and that's what people who believe the way you do when you try to live at my expense, or allow others to send me the bill for their expenses. Actually, people who believe like you do aren't as brave as a mugger, because you get others to do the dirty collection work for you.
...an individual responsibility based on religious principles...which they should fulfill individually.
Another falsehood. Businesses exist to provide services to people in order to turn a profit. NOTHING ELSE. In fact, if others have invested in that business, to sidetrack capital to anything else that doesn't contribute to the bottom line is embezzlement.
How to decide if it's stealing? Pick up a phone book, open to the white pages, open to a random page and put your finger on a name at random. Is he somehow paying for what the "benefit" in question?
No.
Does he have an ethical or moral obligation to?
Yes.
If those answers are no and yes, respectively, then you're a thief.
??????????
False. Joe and Jane Goobersticker of Gator's Crossing, GA are NOT responsible for my bills or yours. They work hard for their money, and we're not entitled to any of it just because we got an ingrown toenail, slipped on a banana peel and hurt our backs, or got pancreatic cancer. To say otherwise is to enslave them. How do you do that and sleep at night?
Last edited:
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Funny how THOU SHALT NOT STEAL became a fringe belief.
Here's how.
I just found out about 3 hours ago that my mother's doctor found 3 spots on her lungs, possible emphysema, and nodules in her liver. She also has diabetes, high blood pressure, and only one kidney. She's supposed to go in for a biopsy and other tests to get more information. Treatment will be quite complicated and very expensive.
And still, with all that wrong with her, she does not have the right to send her medical bills to the rest of the taxpayers.
DOES
NOT
HAVE
THE
RIGHT.
Her bills are primarily the responsibility of my father and herself. After that, immediate family, and after that, extended family. If we can't pay, we still do not have the right to have taxpayers pay her bills.
If a church, charitable organization, medical school, or strangers off the street want to voluntarily pay for some or all, that's charity that God will remember.
The same goes for me if I get sick.
We're all going to die. Some of us sooner, and some of us later. Some of us will steal before we go, and some won't. Maybe on the other side, an angel will ask, "What part of THOU SHALT NOT STEAL didn't you understand?"
If you feel a responsibility to help the sick (an admirable thing), become a doctor or a nurse. Or volunteer at a hospital. Or take out YOUR OWN CHECKBOOK and write a check out of YOUR OWN FUNDS to help someone. I'm not being facetious; it's an honorable thing that God will remember. But you get no credit for merely paying what was taken from you and advocating that more be taken from others.
There are charity hospitals in this and other countries that treat people regardless of ability to pay. Write them a check. Ask others to do the same.
But don't steal.
Maybe a RIGHT is the wrong word to use then?....How about I' am eligible for a reduction grant based on my taxable income? With criteria set by the county, state and federal governments....hence IF I qualify it is NOT theft...
I am not "entitled" to it, but I am eligible to receive it...
Besides I pay the SS tax --- state and county sales tax, fuel tax and smokes tax and property tax....my gawd how many taxes does one need to pay?....
Al..it is not stealing when you have permission....gee whiz
I am not "entitled" to it, but I am eligible to receive it...
Besides I pay the SS tax --- state and county sales tax, fuel tax and smokes tax and property tax....my gawd how many taxes does one need to pay?....
Al..it is not stealing when you have permission....gee whiz
Last edited:
jaminjim
Veteran Expediter
So the only difference between you and a Mexican is you are legally sucking off the government teat, and the other might be here illegally?Maybe a RIGHT is the wrong word to use then?....How about I' am eligible for a reduction grant based on my taxable income? With criteria set by the county, state and federal governments....hence IF I qualify it is NOT theft...
I am not "entitled" to it, but I am eligible to receive it...
Besides I pay the SS tax --- state and county sales tax, fuel tax and smokes tax and property tax....my gawd how many taxes does one need to pay?....
Al..it is not stealing when you have permission....gee whiz
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Because it is not a business deduction, it is a credit and the money has to come from somewhere.
Well if his empire is that big and he's not managing to pay taxes, that's pretty impressive
Actually that's part of the problem, I wish people who think there is an adversary relationship between the people and the government understand that the system does really need funding for those programs that exists instead of borrowing. SO I would say there is nothing impressive at all.
YES they did but to apply the logic that they would have thought what was done for the common good while allowing our rights to be eroded in the process seems to be opposite of the truth. As much as the idea that slaves and women didn't have rights. Many in today's society miss the historical truths about those times while accepting that women were without any rights what so ever and subject to restrictions of everyday life, and slaves were beaten daily while being worked to death in the fields.
Well you lost me there. Taxation without representation was a situation where the American colonist were not being represented in Parliament to the degree of equality that was needed to maintain the relationship between the colony and mother country ... in other words, they didn't have the voice they felt was needed to be part of Great Britain.
Many also seem to think that King George was an absolute ruler, hence he could have done anything he wanted - which was far from the truth.
Tying this to the idea that the founding fathers would have allowed things like welfare or anything that is government provided seems to be a stretch. They seemed to think that the person who worked was in control of their own destiny and if they didn't want to apply themselves to working, they starved and no one was to blame but themselves.
You also miss a point, an important point, that government in itself applying fairness to things like the work place has removed the opportunity component and placed on the worker unfair burdens that have nothing to do with the work. I think this is an important to understand because without the freedom to chart one's own course by having no government intervention in one's life, you are a subject of the government and not a citizen at that point. They may have envisioned the concept that one's right is that from God to do what is needed to do to survive within the limits of not harming or trampling others rights.
An example is the minimal wage, which restricts the employer from hiring people based on a negotiation of the wage but more importantly forces the employer to limit the hiring of people because they have a finite amount of resources to work with now that the level of wage is set. This in turn burdens the worker who is willing to work for a lower wage to secure the income and further puts a burden on him/her to be competitive at levels that he/she may not be able to handle.
There are a number of other examples, some of them are hidden (like having a social security card) and others we are used to.
Overall, it may be great to think that the government is there to make things fair but to make them fair, we have to give up our rights to property, our right to choose our own path in life and more importantly to become what others want us to become and be controlled by those who we can't hold accountable - pretty much a subject of our government.
Well another problem with your history. I don't think that the taxes that were levied were all as bad as you are making it out to be.
First and foremost the issues surrounding those taxes, which were voted on by Parliament and approved by the King, were targeted at low rates to collect revenue to pay debt - the same thing is going to happen here soon. The average British citizen paid more in taxes than the average American colonist and the debt was a big problem in Britain at that time.
The King's actions were the same as our presidents, limited in scope and application. He represented the country, and actually could be removed if there was serious reasons for it. He could not make laws as people think, he was subject to Parliament's demands and governed by them on different levels. He wasn't like Tsarina Kathrine, who held most of the power in her country and didn't have to have approval most of the laws that were created.
Second people starved for different reasons and most of the time people had bartered for their food, a farmer may give corn for a pig or a blacksmith may repair a wagon for a couple chickens. So if we put this in the proper context of the times, the taxes were a burden but not a detriment to the people.
And the SC's decision was flat out wrong - not the first or last time it's happened, either.
Well I agree it is wrong but the fact remains, the person who puts money into the social security system is not entitled to that money - period.
If they revisit it, I think it will be reaffirmed because of what is really at stake - political control of social security.
Oilerman1957
Expert Expediter
Makes me wonder if you have kids, most all people take money from others as we go through life. If you have kids, who paid for their schooling?, I dont have kids, but i pay property taxes which alot goes to the school system, I also pay 1 percent school tax, so why is anyone that doesnt have kids in school paying for the ones that do. so according to you, they are stealing from me, So i have to ask, did you steal for your kids?
Hey I pay education tax but have no kids in school...
Oilerman1957
Expert Expediter
Do you have kids?
Not any of school age....
I guess the ones that are calling this stealing would be the same ones we see out standing on the curb with that cardboard sign because they won't ask for help...oh well...sucks to be them...
Oilerman1957
Expert Expediter
but they used the public school system when they were young?, thief, *smirks*
You didnt pay your own way, sucked off of taxpayers, shame, shame *laughs*
Last edited:
oh back when I paid higher taxes....way higher....key word now...DEDUCTIONS.....and many of them......kinda like GE ya know......make billions and pay $0 taxes...ya think they feel bad or guilty...?
Oilerman1957
Expert Expediter
There are people whom have taken others lives that dont feel bad or guilty, does it make it right? Plus, corporate taxes are to high then? Hmmmm. My point is, when people are complaning about welfare, medicaid, medicare, and so on, and how they should be aboilished, maybe they need to step back and see how they have been helped through our system, such as everyone giving to a school system even if they dont use it themselves, just because we dont use a certain service doesnt make the ones who do freeloaders because we all have been helped in one way or another.
Thank you for jumping off that frying pan and into the fire with me...I thought you were going to tap dance forever....LOL
I'd prefer to exhaust all avenues of finance help BEFORE I go playing the family card and making them feel guilty and or obligated when they'd probably have tight budgets as well....
Oilerman1957
Expert Expediter
Oh, there is so much more, the question is, how far do we take it, my house didnt catch fire, why shoud i pay for someone elses troubles, let them foot the bill. Where do we stop?