DC Tom Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 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 .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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 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 Then again, Tom could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 Then again, Tom could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. Go count your !@#$ing tupperware, you ballless wonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 Go count your !@#$ing tupperware, you ballless wonder. You talkin' to me, pencilneck? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 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 .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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 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. Welcome to how government programs work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 Gas is down to $4.09 today from a high of $4.49 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 3.70 here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 3.70 here 3.68 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 Filled up at 3.67. A mile down the street it was $3.62 If only my tires were inflated enough to have gotten that extra mileage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 78% of union members agree with the secret ballot.... but i thought they were being intimidated? 84% of union members agree that there should be a vote on unions. You have no support even among union members. http://rpc.senate.gov/public/_files/022707SecretBallotDB.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 3.68 Gas goes down to that level here... Then it shoots back up to $4.05... One day I watched it drop 40 cents only to go back up agian by the end of the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 Filled up at 3.67. A mile down the street it was $3.62 If only my tires were inflated enough to have gotten that extra mileage 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts