K26dp Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 [quote name='RhaegarTar' post='1752518' date='Apr 11 2009, 21.03']On Wednesday millions are going to participate in tea-party protests around the country. I hope your all paying attention, as the media certainly will not be.[/quote] From what I can tell, FOX News is sponsoring the event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Re: WhiteQueen [quote name='WhiteQueen' post='1754889' date='Apr 14 2009, 15.09'][much rationalizing of an argument based on a premise that has since shown to be false][/quote] This is why you're a Republican, and I'm not. Apparently, your decision is justified whether your premise was factually correct or not. How wonderfully convenient. Many rational people are often bogged down by the hassle of having to revise and modify their views upon discovery of new facts that falsify one of their premises. Your escape from this restrictive habit is inspirational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balefont Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 ooooh, that'll sting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteQueen Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 [quote name='TerraPrime' post='1755883' date='Apr 15 2009, 11.43']Re: WhiteQueen This is why you're a Republican, and I'm not. Apparently, your decision is justified whether your premise was factually correct or not. How wonderfully convenient. Many rational people are often bogged down by the hassle of having to revise and modify their views upon discovery of new facts that falsify one of their premises. Your escape from this restrictive habit is inspirational.[/quote] I am so confused by your righteous reply. Is that regarding the stamps? That the tax revenue does not go to the Post Office? You lose a bigger picture behind an example. My decision was to actively avoid giving this government any of my money that it does not already take via taxation of my income. Post office is still part of exec. branch. So, I avoid supporting it. From your link I learned that I was not supporting it via paying taxes. Well, it's good news, I thought I was. It does not change the fact that I won't further support it by buying stamps and mailing stuff. Including teabags. It does not make my premise false. Regarding teabags though, I am curious. Do they mail used teabags, or unused ones? Do they wrap in in the cellophane? Because, what if it rains and the tea would stain the envelope? And other envelopes in the mailbox? And is there anything else in the envelope or just a teabag? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 [quote name='WhiteQueen' post='1755925' date='Apr 15 2009, 11.35']My decision was to actively avoid giving this government any of my money that it does not already take via taxation of my income. Post office is still part of exec. branch. So, I avoid supporting it. From your link I learned that I was not supporting it via paying taxes. Well, it's good news, I thought I was. It does not change the fact that I won't further support it by buying stamps and mailing stuff. Including teabags. It does not make my premise false.[/quote] The impact on the government from your patronage of the USPS is, as far as I can tell, non-existent. Unless you can show me some evidence of this alleged escrow account into which the Federal Government tap, or that profits from the USPS is part of the federal revenue, then the USPS's budget and revenue is entirely separate from that of the general budget of the government. Your attempt to not support the Federal Government by not patronizing USPS is, therefore, invalid. It's invalid because your original premise, that your tax dollars go to support USPS, is false. Absent further evidence, I'd say that's the rational conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 [quote name='mcbigski' post='1755809' date='Apr 15 2009, 10.29']Which would be insightful instead of hypocritical except for his saying it about eight years too late.[/quote] Yes, of course. My bad. Illegally spying on your own citizens? Ok. Higher Taxes? Fucking TYRANNY!!! Your attempt at equivalence here would be shocking if I didn't already know you and hadn't already read your next, stupid paragraph. [quote]Most flat tax proposals include a sizeable individual exemption. Which means it's still progessive, just flatter and far simpler to calculate and comply with - even a Treasury Secretary could probably understand it! I'd run through the math, but it seems so obvious that it would be a wasted exercise. And if your idea of fairness is the same rules for all, then it's also fairer.[/quote] If your idea of fairness is "Same rules, regardless of the actual situation", your an idiot. A sizable individual exemption just pushes the regression higher and also means you've got to bump your rate up, fucking people over even more. No matter how you try, a Flat Tax is horribly regressive because it will always target those with the least amount of money the most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcbigski Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 [quote name='Fatuous' post='1755841' date='Apr 15 2009, 10.59']1 "As long as people don't die, it should be fine". 2 "Simple math for simple folks." 3 "Me be simple, me be for this." 4 "20% Income tax for all! What can be fairer than that?" My real answers: 1 Tax rates as they are do the same; It's meaningless and unrealistic as it. 2,3 I do my own taxes but then again, I'm something of a math genius. However, a "progressive tax" rate is more of an exponential curve or maybe should be and it wouldn't be a flat line; I'd give it to you in calculus terms but I'm not sure if you would understand it. Hell, I'll try it: Differential of a curve is a line; Differential of a line is a constant. Therefore: Progressive tax > linear tax > flat tax. 4 What would be fair? If tax rates curves matched income curves, [b]obviously[/b].[/quote] Just spitballing with figures I saw from a proposal from Stephen Forbes a few years back: Under his Flat Tax, every dollar over $45,000 in income is taxed at 17%. So a person making $30,000 pays zero, a person making $45,000 pays zero, a person making $45,100 pays $17 and a person making $1,045,000 pays $170,000. So the effective tax rate still [b]increases[/b] with the total income (though infintesimally so at higher incomes). You can argue that it's not progessive enough for your tastes as a political decision, but effective tax rate is clearly progessively higher with income, despite your advanced understanding of calculus as a 'math genius'. What happened to separating politics from science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balefont Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 [quote name='mcbigski' post='1755977' date='Apr 15 2009, 13.13']Just spitballing with figures I saw from a proposal from Stephen Forbes a few years back: Under his Flat Tax, every dollar over $45,000 in income is taxed at 17%. So a person making $30,000 pays zero, a person making $45,000 pays zero, a person making $45,100 pays $17 and a person making $1,045,000 pays $170,000. So the effective tax rate still [b]increases[/b] with the total income (though infintesimally so at higher incomes). You can argue that it's not progessive enough for your tastes as a political decision, but effective tax rate is clearly progessively higher with income, despite your advanced understanding of calculus as a 'math genius'. What happened to separating politics from science?[/quote] Depends. Would this 17% tax include social security and medicare taxes? ETA: Hell, I'd love it if I had $45,000 in pre-tax deductions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arlingzen Bill Posted April 15, 2009 Author Share Posted April 15, 2009 [quote name='WhiteQueen' post='1755925' date='Apr 15 2009, 12.35']I am so confused by your righteous reply. Is that regarding the stamps? That the tax revenue does not go to the Post Office? You lose a bigger picture behind an example. My decision was to actively avoid giving this government any of my money that it does not already take via taxation of my income. Post office is still part of exec. branch. So, I avoid supporting it. From your link I learned that I was not supporting it via paying taxes. Well, it's good news, I thought I was. It does not change the fact that I won't further support it by buying stamps and mailing stuff. Including teabags. It does not make my premise false. Regarding teabags though, I am curious. Do they mail used teabags, or unused ones? Do they wrap in in the cellophane? Because, what if it rains and the tea would stain the envelope? And other envelopes in the mailbox? And is there anything else in the envelope or just a teabag?[/quote] IN the article I posted earlier, they mentioned trucks that hauled in the million teabags to DC. At least for the protest. To completely rid yourself of post office support, you need to not receive any mail as well. A large portion of the USPS's revenue comes from junk mail. So by receiving any junk mail, you are supporting the USPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Walker Texas Ranger Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 [quote name='mcbigski' post='1755977' date='Apr 15 2009, 13.13']You can argue that it's not progessive enough for your tastes as a political decision, but effective tax rate is clearly progessively higher with income, despite your advanced understanding of calculus as a 'math genius'. [b]What happened to separating politics from science?[/b][/quote] Are you fucking serious? I know your probably making a snide reference to Liberals wanting government to not interfere with and thus bias scientific research, but this is completely different. You're suggesting that we separate politics and policy making from such "scientific" concerns as "what works". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balefont Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 PS A flat tax would screw those people with high medical expenses. It would also discourage charitable giving as that deduction would go away. Oh, and screw you to those who live in states that have an income tax. Oh, and you own a house, sorry about that mortgage interest deduction going away on top of your deduction for local real estate taxes. As long as you're healthy, you rent and live in FL (or some other non income tax state) that doesn't give money to charity, you're golden. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_BlauerDragon Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 [quote name='WhiteQueen' post='1755925' date='Apr 15 2009, 09.35']I am so confused by your righteous reply. Is that regarding the stamps? That the tax revenue does not go to the Post Office? You lose a bigger picture behind an example. My decision was to actively avoid giving this government any of my money that it does not already take via taxation of my income. Post office is still part of exec. branch. So, I avoid supporting it. From your link I learned that I was not supporting it via paying taxes. Well, it's good news, I thought I was. It does not change the fact that I won't further support it by buying stamps and mailing stuff. Including teabags. It does not make my premise false. Regarding teabags though, I am curious. Do they mail used teabags, or unused ones? Do they wrap in in the cellophane? Because, what if it rains and the tea would stain the envelope? And other envelopes in the mailbox? And is there anything else in the envelope or just a teabag?[/quote] Careful White Queen. According to Janet Napolitano's Department of Homeland Security you've just indicated yourself as being a member of a "Terrorist Hate Group". On April 7, DHS sent a nine-page warning memo to law enforcement offices across the country titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment." [quote name='Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment']"Right-wing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), [b]and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.[/b] It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigoTheCarpathian Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Coming across the Burnside bridge this morning, I saw about ~20 people holding up signs with something about taxes on them: I assumed they were part of this tea-bag nonsense, because Portland is a city that likes to protest, and usually has a much higher turnout (though it sounds like the "real" protesters will be at the large post offices, where everyone is turning in their tax forms, and where the news cams will be). Seeing them, I muttered to myself "There are dozens of us! Dozens!" Am I the only one who wonders why these good citizens, as a form of protest, just DON'T PAY TAXES this year? It seems like it would be a much more direct and palpable way to illustrate how committed you are to this "unfair" taxation. To further this whole juvenile "tea-bagging" metaphor, it appears to me that people who choose to pay their taxes but go along with a scrotum joke-based mail-in campaign have little-to-no tea in their metaphorical tea-bags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Vigo, I'm caught in a traffic jam in downtown Columbia caused the the "tea party" event at the SC Statehouse. There appear to be at least a thousand people out on the statehouse grounds for the protest and that's after many have left already. [quote]Am I the only one who wonders why these good citizens, as a form of protest, just DON'T PAY TAXES this year? It seems like it would be a much more direct and palpable way to illustrate how committed you are to this "unfair" taxation.[/quote] Out of the car now. How do you propose to pull this off given the fact our taxes are automatically deducted from our pay checks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigoTheCarpathian Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 [quote]I'm caught in a traffic jam in downtown Columbia caused the the "tea party" event at the SC Statehouse. There appear to be at least a thousand people out on the statehouse grounds for the protest and that's after many have left already.[/quote] That's great: having experienced more than my fair share of being waylaid, detained, and/or delayed by protesting hippies and walks/runs through downtown, I find solace in the fact that a lot of people will find out exactly who it is wasting their time and think to themselves (as I've done many times while waiting in traffic): "Damn protestors. Why the hell can't you get organized enough to where you can protest without inconviencing people? Whatever you're against, at this point, I'm for whatever it is, based on you annoying the shit out of me. Good job, you just protested your way into having one less person on your side." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Vigo, That's part of the reason I've never been overly fond of "protest marches" myself. It's a big circle jerk no matter who's holding the protest. [in case you didn't see it I edited my earlier post] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteQueen Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 [quote name='the Blauer Dragon' post='1756026' date='Apr 15 2009, 13.41']Careful White Queen. According to Janet Napolitano's Department of Homeland Security you've just indicated yourself as being a member of a "Terrorist Hate Group". On April 7, DHS sent a nine-page warning memo to law enforcement offices across the country titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."[/quote] Excellent! :rofl: I've arrived! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigoTheCarpathian Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Payroll taxes would be a tough nut to crack, but off the top of my head, I'd say: take 34 exemptions as a protest. As well, if you owe on your federal/state, don't send the govmint the money. If you are owed, send the government back your refund checks with a note saying "I do not believe in the tax system as it currently stands, and rather than spending this money on tea-bags and other empty gestures, I choose to opt out on receiving money from this unfair system." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balefont Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 [quote name='VigoTheCarpathian' post='1756037' date='Apr 15 2009, 13.47']Seeing them, I muttered to myself "There are dozens of us! Dozens!"[/quote] :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Stone Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 [quote name='mcbigski' post='1755977' date='Apr 15 2009, 12.13']Just spitballing with figures I saw from a proposal from Stephen Forbes a few years back: Under his Flat Tax, every dollar over $45,000 in income is taxed at 17%. So a person making $30,000 pays zero, a person making $45,000 pays zero, a person making $45,100 pays $17 and a person making $1,045,000 pays $170,000. So the effective tax rate still [b]increases[/b] with the total income (though infintesimally so at higher incomes). You can argue that it's not progessive enough for your tastes as a political decision, but effective tax rate is clearly progessively higher with income, despite your advanced understanding of calculus as a 'math genius'. What happened to separating politics from science?[/quote] Of course under this tax plan you wouldn't have people making 1 million a year. They would make 45k and the rest would be stock options or some such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.