March for Science Scam

EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
March for Science Scam

I don't get the premise of the 'March for Science'. If someone were truely passionate about their science research, wouldn't they be willing toself fund their passion? Shouldn't the supporters of science fund these projects though kickstarter campaigns? Didn't the Wright brothers self-fundtheir airplane because they were passionate about flying? Same thing in music and art. Wouldn't anyone that was truely passionate not let not gettinga government check get in their way? Please explain how the leftist utopia should work. There is a small group of elites in each field, if you're a member of that club, the rest of societyshould work their ass off to fund your passion. If you're one of the plebs, you have no meaningful passion to pursue, you should just accept yourlot in life of hard work and pay taxes to fund the elitist scientists and artists pursuing their passion instead of your own. To me, the March is basically giving me the middle finger and saying their passions are more important than mine. I work, they play. Please explain so called passionate people that expect me to fund their passion or else they give up their passion. Worker bees and the bourgeoisie thatpursue their passions. This is progress? No. This is a scam. 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: ok, well, all

iwbiek wrote:

ok, well, all i'm saying is it's nothing you need to worry about because whether or not it works out for the rest of us, i can guaran-damn-tee it won't work out for you.

Any thinking person can see from your comments that you're not really about empowering the working man. You're driven by jeolosy and revenge. You want society to be run like a giant monopolistic corporation, with you as the CEO or at least a high ranking manager of the corporation. People like me are reduced to shit work for a subsitence wage. So your politics is no diffenent than any robber barroon capitialist, you just want to be the one on top of the pyramid. Just like we got with Castro Inc. in Cuba and Chavez Inc. in Venezuela.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
revenge for what? nobody did

revenge for what? nobody did anything to me. i grew up upper middle class, live a slightly lower middle class lifestyle now, well salaried job with plenty of security and I'm treated with respect, healthy children, successful marriage (so far, and the most likely one to fuck it up would be me), health insurance, parents who love me, suffered no bullying beyond what the average school kid suffers, went to a good college, no debt except a very reasonable mortgage, bank accounts in the black including savings, i'm reasonably healthy (could be healthier but for my eating and drinking habits), no personal tragedies in my life beyond the norm...what am i bitter about again? honestly, my quality of life might just be better than yours.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Then you should

EXC wrote:
Then you should agree that the 'March for science is a scam'.

No I shouldn't. The march has nothing to do with the discussion of what subjects students can or can't study, the march has to do with fighting those who would silence science. Learn to logic.

EXC wrote:
We let students study whatever they desired. To follow their heart and dreams. So guess what? Many became research scientists instead of general practitioner doctors. So there are too many scientist chasing after too few research dollars.

Students have to pay for education. They can't be told what they can or can't do when they're paying for it for half their life. Your argument only applies to a scenario that doesn't, never did, and never will exist.

EXC wrote:
So now, after paying all this money for their education, these leftist scientists are demanding I pay even more to support their research to follow their dreams.

So go live in the wilderness you hypocrite bitch. You want all the world without paying for anything. People like you should be exiled from society. You're a parasite.

EXC wrote:
If the major cause of war(population pressures) is removed,

Two lies in half a sentence. Impressive.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:So why ever give

EXC wrote:

So why ever give government so much power and free money in form of taxation? If you want to empower the working man, you can start by letting him keep 100% of what he earns. And forcing government to earn 100% of the money it collects.

The real political divide is elites vs the working man. Socialism/Communisms/Leftism are scams because they always end up being led by a strong man who tells the workers I'm with you so give me everthing. He then proceeds to distrute the wealth to himself and cronies that keep him in power.

I expect that if they didn't tax income, which I heard they didn't have the right to do so, that they would need to tax every thing else. So how would you propose they tax people who are poor, middle class or wealthy? 

I would prefer to see a fair or flat tax. I think every one should pay the same amount with no deductions. One form. One page. Easy peasy. 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Agree.

digitalbeachbum wrote:

EXC wrote:

So why ever give government so much power and free money in form of taxation? If you want to empower the working man, you can start by letting him keep 100% of what he earns. And forcing government to earn 100% of the money it collects.

The real political divide is elites vs the working man. Socialism/Communisms/Leftism are scams because they always end up being led by a strong man who tells the workers I'm with you so give me everthing. He then proceeds to distrute the wealth to himself and cronies that keep him in power.

I expect that if they didn't tax income, which I heard they didn't have the right to do so, that they would need to tax every thing else. So how would you propose they tax people who are poor, middle class or wealthy? 

I would prefer to see a fair or flat tax. I think every one should pay the same amount with no deductions. One form. One page. Easy peasy. 

It'll never happen because it's fair. I would think deductions for two kids up to 18 years old.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
A flat tax would not be

A flat tax would not be fair. How could it be fair for one person to have to spend 30% of income in tax while another spends less than 0.000000000001% of income? It's ridiculous that anyone could consider that fair.

A fair tax would be a direct percentage of income.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I expect that if they didn't tax income, which I heard they didn't have the right to do so, that they would need to tax every thing else. So how would you propose they tax people who are poor, middle class or wealthy? 

I would prefer to see a fair or flat tax. I think every one should pay the same amount with no deductions. One form. One page. Easy peasy. 

I prefer no tax. We've been sold a line of BS that taxation is unavoidable(e.g. Death and Taxes). Taxation is the main tool by which the elites enslave the working masses. The rich will always be able to get away with not paying and the poor can just refuse to work to avoid paying.

What I believe is rational and sustainable is charging a user fee for land use and other natural resource usage. This encourages conservation and keeps the wealthy from having a monopoly over land when there is a housing or land shortage. Require all businesses and homeowners to have a minimal service for police and fire protection. It could be a private service, so they'd be charged based on risk. So an chemical plant has to pay more than a regular homeowner.

I believe police, fire, teaching, etc. could and should be done by volunteers. Services like DMV need to be privatized.  'Public servants' have evolved into nothing more than welfare queens. If everyone had a lower tax burden, they could work less hours and become volunteer public servants. They'd have more money to give to charity and science and arts. We don't need elites to decide for us what is a worthy charity and good science.

If you're so poor, you don't own anything. So why pay any tax? What I'd like to see is everyone given equal access to the countries' land/natural resources. So if your poor and you don't want to use any land, you could sell your portion to someone rich to buy things you need like health insurance. Also think the poor should be forced into work camps rather than be allowed to be a homeless blight on cities.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
A tax

Vastet wrote:
A flat tax would not be fair. How could it be fair for one person to have to spend 30% of income in tax while another spends less than 0.000000000001% of income? It's ridiculous that anyone could consider that fair. A fair tax would be a direct percentage of income.
Basically is a fee for using money. The owner of the money system has the right to decide. A person making 100 dollars a day pays 20 bucks. A person gathering 50 bucks a day gives 10. The damages/loss per income is just as hurtful in each case. Are you saying "flat" equals all persons pay the same as--if the tax is 1000 buck a year all pay 1000 bucks a year. As much as I know a flat tax is a flat percentage paid by each. If the rate is 12% than all pay 12% of what they gather. IE- there's been ideas that all pay 25%. You may be using the term "flat" differently. But then also, if a corporation is a person then a corporation pays 25%---after-- all expenses of course. I would favor (as long as there's civilizations anyway) a set deduction for up to 2 kids.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: A person

Old Seer wrote:
A person making 100 dollars a day pays 20 bucks. A person gathering 50 bucks a day gives 10. The damages/loss per income is just as hurtful in each case.

No it isn't. A 20% tax would be 200 out of 1000 and 200,000 out of 1,000,000. Perfectly fair. Vs 200 for someone making 1000 and 200 for someone making 1,000,000. That is ridiculously unfair.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
It's only

Vastet wrote:
Old Seer wrote:
A person making 100 dollars a day pays 20 bucks. A person gathering 50 bucks a day gives 10. The damages/loss per income is just as hurtful in each case.
No it isn't. A 20% tax would be 200 out of 1000 and 200,000 out of 1,000,000. Perfectly fair. Vs 200 for someone making 1000 and 200 for someone making 1,000,000. That is ridiculously unfair.
an example. . The % rate would have to be reasonable also. Yes 200 per 1000---200,000 per 1,000,000 = 20%.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:A flat tax

Vastet wrote:
A flat tax would not be fair. How could it be fair for one person to have to spend 30% of income in tax while another spends less than 0.000000000001% of income? It's ridiculous that anyone could consider that fair. A fair tax would be a direct percentage of income.

I would do a fair tax then; 20 or 30% for every one.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:digitalbeachbum

EXC wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I expect that if they didn't tax income, which I heard they didn't have the right to do so, that they would need to tax every thing else. So how would you propose they tax people who are poor, middle class or wealthy? 

I would prefer to see a fair or flat tax. I think every one should pay the same amount with no deductions. One form. One page. Easy peasy. 

I prefer no tax. We've been sold a line of BS that taxation is unavoidable(e.g. Death and Taxes). Taxation is the main tool by which the elites enslave the working masses. The rich will always be able to get away with not paying and the poor can just refuse to work to avoid paying.

What I believe is rational and sustainable is charging a user fee for land use and other natural resource usage. This encourages conservation and keeps the wealthy from having a monopoly over land when there is a housing or land shortage. Require all businesses and homeowners to have a minimal service for police and fire protection. It could be a private service, so they'd be charged based on risk. So an chemical plant has to pay more than a regular homeowner.

I believe police, fire, teaching, etc. could and should be done by volunteers. Services like DMV need to be privatized.  'Public servants' have evolved into nothing more than welfare queens. If everyone had a lower tax burden, they could work less hours and become volunteer public servants. They'd have more money to give to charity and science and arts. We don't need elites to decide for us what is a worthy charity and good science.

If you're so poor, you don't own anything. So why pay any tax? What I'd like to see is everyone given equal access to the countries' land/natural resources. So if your poor and you don't want to use any land, you could sell your portion to someone rich to buy things you need like health insurance. Also think the poor should be forced into work camps rather than be allowed to be a homeless blight on cities.

While I am on the fence about taxes, I am under the impression that Congress doesn't have the right to tax.

I do not believe that our country would exist at the level it is with out taxes.

I think most of your suggestions are pipe dreams or ignorance.

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I've heard

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
A flat tax would not be fair. How could it be fair for one person to have to spend 30% of income in tax while another spends less than 0.000000000001% of income? It's ridiculous that anyone could consider that fair. A fair tax would be a direct percentage of income.

I would do a fair tax then; 20 or 30% for every one.

proposals from 10% to 35%. I looked up flat tax on wikipedia and there's several types of flat tax, progressive and regressive. But to me a progressive and regressive flat tax wouldn't be a real/actual flat tax. To me a flat tax means just that--even my idea of deduction for 2 kids nullifies the flat tax scheme. For a flat tax to be flat it can't have any other attachments other then business and job expenses. 

I used to think (from other sources of this info) that it was unconstitutional to tax wages earned, on the premise that labor was a free and even exchange. The same as  ford pickup truck that I want to trade for a chevy. As long as there was no profit involved there was no tax, which in this case the two trucks are of equal value. The same as what used to be thought of labor, which is equal trade value, and no profit. The wage tax came into effect when the Federal Reserve was established in 1913. The gov had to guarantee the bankers that what it borrowed  could be paid back. At one time back in the day wages wern't seen as profit amd also not income. Income was strictly attached to profit, that is, an item that sold for more then what it took to produce it, and at that time only profit was considered income. In 1913 the income term migrated to wages. As previous said. A tax is a fee applied for the use of money, but in the case of goods the money has to change hands from one person to another. Even a money gift is taxable and is considered income for the recipient, the only thing that took place is --the money changed users.

Consider sales tax at 7%. It takes changing users 15 times and the gov gets the whole dollar provided it all was used on salable items. 

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I think most of your suggestions are pipe dreams or ignorance.

Probably more likely religion would go away before taxation given the level of ignorance of the unwashed masses.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:digitalbeachbum

EXC wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I think most of your suggestions are pipe dreams or ignorance.

Probably more likely religion would go away before taxation given the level of ignorance of the unwashed masses.

If you had any brains at all you'd realise taxes are a good thing. But you're one of the unwashed masses of uneducated retards.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:EXC

Vastet wrote:
EXC wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I think most of your suggestions are pipe dreams or ignorance.

Probably more likely religion would go away before taxation given the level of ignorance of the unwashed masses.

If you had any brains at all you'd realise taxes are a good thing. But you're one of the unwashed masses of uneducated retards.

Yes that is my problem, since I don't have a brain, the elites were never able to brainwash me into believing my own slavery is good for me.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Vastet wrote:EXC

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
EXC wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I think most of your suggestions are pipe dreams or ignorance.

Probably more likely religion would go away before taxation given the level of ignorance of the unwashed masses.

If you had any brains at all you'd realise taxes are a good thing. But you're one of the unwashed masses of uneducated retards.

Yes that is my problem, since I don't have a brain, the elites were never able to brainwash me into believing my own slavery is good for me.

Quite the contrary. You were brainwashed by elites who pay the lions share of taxes that taxes are evil. So your taxes can go up in order for them to pay less.

The typical American is so anti-self while thoroughly confident they are selfish that it has become the worlds biggest joke. All because the typical American has bought into the lie that they might get rich some day, and 'when' (lol) that happens they'd get to keep more of their money.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Quite the

Vastet wrote:
 Quite the contrary. You were brainwashed by elites who pay the lions share of taxes that taxes are evil. So your taxes can go up in order for them to pay less. The typical American is so anti-self while thoroughly confident they are selfish that it has become the worlds biggest joke. All because the typical American has bought into the lie that they might get rich some day, and 'when' (lol) that happens they'd get to keep more of their money.

So Canadians have all bought into the lie that when the rich are taxed heavily, they don't pass along their taxes in the form of higher prices and lower wages? The rich in Canada just say I can make 30% return investing in a low tax country, but they love Canada so much they'll just take 5% return after taxes? The rich didn't get rich by being loyal to anything but the bottom line, why should they change? Also must buy into the lie that revenue will help the working man and poor and not be used as corporate welfare for big pharma, big argra and big oil that keep them in power.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:So Canadians have

EXC wrote:
So Canadians have all bought into the lie that when the rich are taxed heavily, they don't pass along their taxes in the form of higher prices and lower wages?

That's not a lie, it's proven fact. Whether or not the rich are taxed, they seek to increase prices and lower wages. A good thousand years of history documents this reality, and absolutely no evidence whatsoever even remotely questions it. Capitalism couldn't survive if this wasn't the way it worked.

EXC wrote:
The rich in Canada just say I can make 30% return investing in a low tax country, but they love Canada so much they'll just take 5% return after taxes?

Income for persons and corporations who reside in the country while having operations outside of the country which profit them are taxed. Any savings made in taxes are non-existent, because the government demands the difference. Yet again you prove how little you know about everything.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Income for

Vastet wrote:
Income for persons and corporations who reside in the country while having operations outside of the country which profit them are taxed. Any savings made in taxes are non-existent, because the government demands the difference. Yet again you prove how little you know about everything.

You're so full of shit. I moved money oversees in part due to excessive taxation in USA. Of course it gets taxed in other countries. The USA can't tax it and doesn't ever know about it. Otherwise it would be double taxaton.

Not stopping this guy:

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/the-tax-climate-refugee-murray-edwards

The rich are the ones with the means to relocate. The working man will then get stuck with the tax bill.

Also you believe this BS that the taxes will benefit the middle class poor. Please hold your breath waiting for a check from the government. The money goes for coporate welfare like big pharma to make opoid addicts of everyone, or big agra to make the poor HF corn syrup addicts. Some wealth redistribution.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:You're so full of

EXC wrote:
You're so full of shit.

No you are.

EXC wrote:
I moved money oversees in part due to excessive taxation in USA.

We're not talking about the US retard. You specifically referred to Canada. How do you breathe without a brain anyway?

EXC wrote:
Also you believe this BS that the taxes will benefit the middle class poor. Please hold your breath waiting for a check from the government

I get about 5 or 6 such cheques every year. You're so dumb it's hilarious.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:We're not

Vastet wrote:
We're not talking about the US retard. You specifically referred to Canada. How do you breathe without a brain anyway?  

So you're telling us that Canada has tax spies throughout the world checking to make sure no Canadian has investments oversees that they don't report to the tax authorities in Canada? in reality, it is the same situation as US, the rich can move there money where ever they please:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-offshore-treaties-barbados-tax-avoidance-1.3641278

Nothing new, the working man gets stuck with the huge tax bill.

They only thing that could slow down the outflow to tax havens would be a Soviet style iron curtain.

You live in a fantasty world where the rich are or should be stopped from moving their money to avoid taxation. Only big brother could do this. Is this what you want? A world with zero privacy to stop the rich from keeping their money and having a black market no tax economy?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:So you're telling

EXC wrote:
So you're telling us that Canada has tax spies throughout the world checking to make sure no Canadian has investments oversees that they don't report to the tax authorities in Canada?

I wouldn't know. What I do know is that if you're hiding income and the government finds out you're fucked.

EXC wrote:
in reality, it is the same situation as US, the rich can move there money where ever they please:

Which is really no different than anyone working under the table. Doesn't matter. It's illegal. The government isn't omniscient. But if often finds out eventually, especially these days with hackers releasing information from havens like what happened in Panama aways back.
And we weren't discussing that anyway oh master of topic switching cause you got your ass kicked and you're desperately failing to score points by switching subjects.

EXC wrote:
You live in a fantasty world where the rich are or should be stopped from moving their money to avoid taxation.

Says the guy who is the definition of living in a fantasy world and never gets anything right.

EXC wrote:
Only big brother could do this.

Not true.

EXC wrote:
A world with zero privacy to stop the rich from keeping their money and having a black market no tax economy?

We don't need to suspend privacy for individuals. Suspending it for corporations would be more than sufficient.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer

Old Seer wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
A flat tax would not be fair. How could it be fair for one person to have to spend 30% of income in tax while another spends less than 0.000000000001% of income? It's ridiculous that anyone could consider that fair. A fair tax would be a direct percentage of income.

I would do a fair tax then; 20 or 30% for every one.

proposals from 10% to 35%. I looked up flat tax on wikipedia and there's several types of flat tax, progressive and regressive. But to me a progressive and regressive flat tax wouldn't be a real/actual flat tax. To me a flat tax means just that--even my idea of deduction for 2 kids nullifies the flat tax scheme. For a flat tax to be flat it can't have any other attachments other then business and job expenses. 

I used to think (from other sources of this info) that it was unconstitutional to tax wages earned, on the premise that labor was a free and even exchange. The same as  ford pickup truck that I want to trade for a chevy. As long as there was no profit involved there was no tax, which in this case the two trucks are of equal value. The same as what used to be thought of labor, which is equal trade value, and no profit. The wage tax came into effect when the Federal Reserve was established in 1913. The gov had to guarantee the bankers that what it borrowed  could be paid back. At one time back in the day wages wern't seen as profit amd also not income. Income was strictly attached to profit, that is, an item that sold for more then what it took to produce it, and at that time only profit was considered income. In 1913 the income term migrated to wages. As previous said. A tax is a fee applied for the use of money, but in the case of goods the money has to change hands from one person to another. Even a money gift is taxable and is considered income for the recipient, the only thing that took place is --the money changed users.

Consider sales tax at 7%. It takes changing users 15 times and the gov gets the whole dollar provided it all was used on salable items. 

There is a problem with deductions, but I'm not sure how to fix it.

Rich people pay knowledgable tax consultants or CPA's to handle their taxes. They end up not paying near what the poor or the middle class pay.

I agree with you on the income tax bit. It's a gimmick to me. Also taxing the gift is too as too.. the death tax or the estate tax. All bullshit.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
There was a time

(in the olden days as they say) that income was profits and taxes were mostly paid by business. Wages wern't considerd income becaus wages were considered and even up exchange and no profit. However, the constitution of the US states, "from any or "all" income derived. That can be construed as anything. But at one time (if this is correct ) even in the UD wages were not considered taxable because of the fair exchange understanding. Every sort of willy nilly tax has come about since the intitution of the Federal reserve. The big federal reserve bankers beeded asurance that the gove could pay them back of any and all money loaned to the US gov.

The constitution was written at a time when business profits were considered income, and wages weren't considered profit ot income. Stop and think for a bit---- if yoy ran a business by yourdseplf and lives on the profits you only paid taxes on the profits to the business and what you took to pay yourself came from thos profits. Onw couldn't hardly live on what it cost to do business, or extract funds from business expenses or you'd run yopur business broke. You had to pay yourself drom the profits--would that not be the case. Do you pay taxes on what you paid yourself from the profits ---or not. This shows that taxes on the most part are a sacm--because the gov can do anything it wants with this idea. As I understant it, the constitution says income--and at a ti9me when wages were not income. So then, what is the money that you pay yourself back in  that tinme--is it income as wages or income as profits to you. You decide.

Ok, now, you get bussy and busness is booming for you so you have to hire someone to help out. In order to pay that person you have to pay from the profits, just as you paid yourself---is that not correct Y-N? Ok so what does the gov do----if--it taxes tha money the employee makes----that enmployee is paying the tax on the profits you made as a business, is that not so. So--if your business pays an employee from the profits (it couldn't possibly come from anywhere else right, then the employee ends up paying the tax you would normally pay on profits "if"? "when" you didn't have an employee. You get to deduct the employees wages as expenses.

Ok, back to the pickup truck analygee. You trade even up a pick truck you  have for one someone else has and you both agreed they were of equal value. Is there an exchange tax--No, because the items traded were of equal value, so there is no profit. Now that's a prorblem---becasue when you go to work you trade your labor for what "you" say is equal value. But here;s where the gove steps in ad says---oh no buster you owe us taxes on money in the change of hands from employer to you the employee.  So techniacally the Gov then decides what is value and what isn't. And it can make value of anything it wants for the sake of paying back the federal reserve that confiscated the economy by permisson of the gov---which the Gov never owned an economy to give away to begin with.

 Now ----in order to understand this process and proceedue you'll have to make an exclusive study on how the Federal reserve works---and I qurantee you'll never figure it out because ithere's all sorts of claims how it works and all are contrdictory----to a degree that you won't be able to figure it out becasue theter's many claim of how it works and none of it makes sense. In  one case (for an IE) the fed is supposed to pay back all it's profits (minus a small percentage for expenses) to the federal Government---which negates any reason for the Federal Reserve to exist because in this case---the Gove is barrowinjg money from itself,,and then charging taxes to pay itself back----if that makes any sense. The thing of it is---you're not supposed to know how the FED Res works---which actually means---it dosen't work. When you total up the sum reasons the federal reserve exists---it really doesn't becasue there's no real reason for it to exist. So, who's the fed res---no one knows exept the fed res guys who don't seem to know anything of how it works---but it's there---so-- the only reason it could possibly exist is becasue its a scam that no one can expalain--there's no other explanation for it.

Originally. The Federal Reserve was made up of about the ten biggest banks that held a certain amount of their assets (cash assets) designated for use by (barrowing) for the federal government. But those banks wanted assurance that they would get paid back---so--hence---the only way that's possible of to guanish eveyone's wages before hand to suffice a guarantee. Since then the Fedral Reseve has morphed itself into something so far fetched there's no possible way to make any sense if it--other then it has to be some manner of Ponsey scheme, or some othet total fraud.

But--if it's Fraud---not to worry--you really don't owe it anything--becasue under the laws of the country a fraud is not payable by the one (or ones) the fraud was perpetrated upon. In order for the the gov to pay back anything it owes---if it dos---it has to make fraud legal. There's no such thing a a payable fraud. Now, that's "if" the Fed Res is a fraud which is most likely--but there's no way to prove it becasue the gov won't audit it, or tell anyone how it works or doesn't work.

OK, Back to taxes. Well um, er, ah, hmmm. You have to pay it or they'll put you in prison---not because you commited a crime (hell the Gov does that on a daily basis) but because you didn't pay the tax. That's why its called a tax---becasue you owe it and you owe it because you use money. Tax is a fee for useing thei money---who the hell ever it blongs to--and no one know who. But what we do know is---the Gov will never ba able to pay the money it barrowed from itself--I think--maybe--- I knoiw onre thing  for sure---they don't know. What you can be comforted in is--if it's a fraud you owe no one anything. There's no possible way any one can loan out as much money as the Gov owes, and if the gov will never pay that amount then--it has to be a scam. So, keep paying to stay out of jail.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:(in the olden

Old Seer wrote:

(in the olden days as they say) that income was profits.... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz So, keep paying to stay out of jail.

Sorry you lost me. My ADD keeps me from reading more than three sentences.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I neither know nor care to

I neither know nor care to know enough about US history to comment on the wall of text.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Ok, back to

Old Seer wrote:

Ok, back to the pickup truck analygee. You trade even up a pick truck you  have for one someone else has and you both agreed they were of equal value. Is there an exchange tax--No, because the items traded were of equal value, so there is no profit. Now that's a prorblem---becasue when you go to work you trade your labor for what "you" say is equal value. But here;s where the gove steps in ad says---oh no buster you owe us taxes on money in the change of hands from employer to you the employee.  So techniacally the Gov then decides what is value and what isn't. And it can make value of anything it wants for the sake of paying back the federal reserve that confiscated the economy by permisson of the gov---which the Gov never owned an economy to give away to begin with.

There is a simple answer to the irrationality of taxation. User fees. 

If you own a truck, the government must defend this right of ownership. This means paperwork must be processed to show you are the legal owner. If someone tries to steal it, the police must work to catch the thief, he must be prosecuted and punished. So doesn't an ownership fee make more sense instead of trying to collect taxes from people that don't even own a vehicle? A society and economy is going to be most effiecient when there is a strong correlation between cost and labor.

In this case of exchanging 2 trucks, the DMV must do paperwork. One of you could be a thief and try to steal from the other. So there is a cost for your transaction that the buyers and sellers should pay. Not me.

With taxation, the winners are the welfare queens(corporate and individual) and politically connected. The loosers are the working man, innovators and people with modest consumption. With user fees, this is reversed.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
sorry about this-

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

(in the olden days as they say) that income was profits.... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz So, keep paying to stay out of jail.

Sorry you lost me. My ADD keeps me from reading more than three sentences.

but as the saying goes---everything is connected to every thing. As I type I see connections in all directions and go off the deep end.

Ok, in short- Taxes on the common person (wage earner) started with the institution of the Federal Reserve. What does the Federal reserve do and what's it for. It morphed into something no one undertands. I'm trying to go to the basics to arrive at an understanding. So today in our conversation on the subject we accept taxes as is and applied by government. taxes have turnt into a mish mash of anything a person wants it to be. We now   discuss a "flat tax" as being better then what we have now. But, if it'd be better we'll never get a flat tax becasue there are those who are refered to as the elites who are better off with what is in progress at this time. So we, the commoner are stuck with a dishonest and unfair tax that would benefit us. What the ell does this have to do with the Federalr Reserve---that's when we started getting taxed on our wages--that originally we wern't taxed on, and we end up with a scheme that benefits business over the citizen. But- you can deduct anything (to make thngs fair)(or seem fair) that is required for you to have your job such as work shoes, gloves, tools, saftey equipment --that your employer may require you to have on the job. Yuppeeee, you get to deduct a few bucks every year. Forget the flat tax---corporations won't get to cheat or have loopholes like they have now. OK. lemme see now--if I can connect this to alot more and----naw, that'll do. 

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I understand the

EXC wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

Ok, back to the pickup truck analygee. You trade even up a pick truck you  have for one someone else has and you both agreed they were of equal value. Is there an exchange tax--No, because the items traded were of equal value, so there is no profit. Now that's a prorblem---becasue when you go to work you trade your labor for what "you" say is equal value. But here;s where the gove steps in ad says---oh no buster you owe us taxes on money in the change of hands from employer to you the employee.  So techniacally the Gov then decides what is value and what isn't. And it can make value of anything it wants for the sake of paying back the federal reserve that confiscated the economy by permisson of the gov---which the Gov never owned an economy to give away to begin with.

There is a simple answer to the irrationality of taxation. User fees. 

If you own a truck, the government must defend this right of ownership. This means paperwork must be processed to show you are the legal owner. If someone tries to steal it, the police must work to catch the thief, he must be prosecuted and punished. So doesn't an ownership fee make more sense instead of trying to collect taxes from people that don't even own a vehicle? A society and economy is going to be most effiecient when there is a strong correlation between cost and labor.

In this case of exchanging 2 trucks, the DMV must do paperwork. One of you could be a thief and try to steal from the other. So there is a cost for your transaction that the buyers and sellers should pay. Not me.

With taxation, the winners are the welfare queens(corporate and individual) and politically connected. The loosers are the working man, innovators and people with modest consumption. With user fees, this is reversed.

fees and etc. What I'm dealing with is wage or income tax. The term income got changed from profits to anything as long as you got a buck or two ( or more) from someone else. Notice--you mostly get taxed when money is tranfered from one person to another. That means tax is basically a money user/transfer fee, or, a receipt fee--take your pick. Back to the pickup truck.. If your truck is more valuable then the other, the other guy has gained--therefore tax is due--by him, to the amount of difference in value. But---you can claim a loss. Stupid is as stupid does--or whatever.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Old Seer wrote:Ok,

EXC wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

Ok, back to the pickup truck analygee. You trade even up a pick truck you  have for one someone else has and you both agreed they were of equal value. Is there an exchange tax--No, because the items traded were of equal value, so there is no profit. Now that's a prorblem---becasue when you go to work you trade your labor for what "you" say is equal value. But here;s where the gove steps in ad says---oh no buster you owe us taxes on money in the change of hands from employer to you the employee.  So techniacally the Gov then decides what is value and what isn't. And it can make value of anything it wants for the sake of paying back the federal reserve that confiscated the economy by permisson of the gov---which the Gov never owned an economy to give away to begin with.

There is a simple answer to the irrationality of taxation. User fees. 

If you own a truck, the government must defend this right of ownership. This means paperwork must be processed to show you are the legal owner. If someone tries to steal it, the police must work to catch the thief, he must be prosecuted and punished. So doesn't an ownership fee make more sense instead of trying to collect taxes from people that don't even own a vehicle? A society and economy is going to be most effiecient when there is a strong correlation between cost and labor.

In this case of exchanging 2 trucks, the DMV must do paperwork. One of you could be a thief and try to steal from the other. So there is a cost for your transaction that the buyers and sellers should pay. Not me.

With taxation, the winners are the welfare queens(corporate and individual) and politically connected. The loosers are the working man, innovators and people with modest consumption. With user fees, this is reversed.

Pure delusion. Not only is such a system absolutely infeasible, if implemented it would significantly increase disparity and end innovation instantly.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I think it was

in the 90s sometime. The US supreme court decided that a policeman is not liable to protrect anyone, nor place self in danger of harm to enforce laws. IOW, the police dept has no obligation to protect anyone. A police officer (as I see it) is no different then anyoone else, and being a police oficer won't increase his citizenship beyond that of any other citizen. I did try to look this up at one time but that was a while ago (About 2000) and failed to find anything on the net at that time. I wonder if that gos for any obligation for a police Dept to go find a theif, or my pickup. But isn't that why they get hired by a city. If they don't go looking for my truck coul;d the mayor fire them. ?????  Maybe thaey have to find the vehicle but don't have to place themselves in danger to retreive it. Mybe they would call me and I have to go get it. I can't see my life being less value then the truck so--- may as well let them have it. Actually this whole thng don't sound right. But then again no citizen is obligated to place themself in danger on behalf of another---so why would a police officer have to. I can't see where a policeman is supposed to be a robot sooo----shrug.

 

Ok-looked it up. search Warren Vs District of Columbia.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Pure

Vastet wrote:

 Pure delusion. Not only is such a system absolutely infeasible, if implemented it would significantly increase disparity and end innovation instantly.

What technology does not exist that makes user fees for all services infeasible? Every business in the world charges based upon usage. Government is too incompetent to do so?

Why is tempory disparity a bad thing? For example, if there is a huge disparity between the price of barley and corn because there was an undersupply of barley and oversupply of corn. In the free market, more farmers would start going barley, the market would eventually correct itself.

But in your insane world, the government takes the profits the barley farmer makes and gives it to the corn farmer(also to the farmer that grows nothing), so they both make the same. So how do disparities ever get fixed?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Being a farm boy

I'd say you're quite correct. Farm subsidy is a common deal in farmer world. The gov will pay you x moneys per acre  to take a crop out of production for a year or more then 1 season. It amounts to, the gov paying to make a better deal for someone else. It's cash croppers that this applies to mostly. IE- Cattle ranchers  knew of a crop retraction coming in a two years for cash croppers. So they went out with rented equipment and scuffed up many acres of pasture and planted wheat so thin the fields only had one side. Then they took it out of production the next year cuz the gov was paying big time  per acre if wheat farmers wouldn't plant wheat. And on it goes.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:What technology

EXC wrote:
What technology does not exist that makes user fees for all services infeasible?

If it's so simple why have you still failed to show how it could be done?

EXC wrote:
Every business in the world charges based upon usage.

That's a lie. Very few businesses charge based on usage. Communications, power, water, & delivery is about it. Most businesses charge based on sales of actual product.

EXC wrote:
Why is tempory disparity a bad thing?

It wouldn't be temporary. It would be exponentially increasing permanently.

EXC wrote:
For example, if there is a huge disparity between the price of barley and corn because there was an undersupply of barley and oversupply of corn. In the free market, more farmers would start going barley, the market would eventually correct itself.

And suddenly corn is expensive and barley is cheap. And no accounting was made for whether barley was more sustainable than corn. In a free market, extremes of excess and rarity are far more commonplace and far less predictable.

EXC wrote:
But in your insane world, the government takes the profits the barley farmer makes and gives it to the corn farmer(also to the farmer that grows nothing), so they both make the same. So how do disparities ever get fixed?

More lies. I've told you hundreds of times that socialism doesn't necessarily give everyone the same income. By definition you wouldn't get anything if you weren't willing to work under socialism. But you have to keep making shit up yearafter year and make the exact same fool of yourself over and over again. I'd feel sorry for you, but you're a psychopath and a parasite on top of being a pathalogical liar.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
The difference

in prices of grain types is mostly due to--each has a different expense application to produce. Corn normally has a lower per acre yeld then wheat. Small grains such as oats, wheat, and barley normally run the same except for what type. There's hard and soft wheat which also has a different price as each has a different use. This years prices depend upon last years left over, and, the grain exchanges have grains priced a number of years in advance which wil fluctuate with the will of the farmer to forecast profit in one type or the other.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: That's a lie.

Vastet wrote:
That's a lie. Very few businesses charge based on usage. Communications, power, water, & delivery is about it. Most businesses charge based on sales of actual product.

Really? here in the USA, if I buy 100 gallons of milk or gasoline, I pay 100x more than if I buy one. If I wash 10 cars, it cost 10x one car. How does it work in Canada?

Vastet wrote:

 And suddenly corn is expensive and barley is cheap. And no accounting was made for whether barley was more sustainable than corn. In a free market, extremes of excess and rarity are far more commonplace and far less predictable.

Why do govenment bearacrat planners have crystal balls that are not available to the peon farmers? You have this belief that govenment employees are superhuman and more moral than the rest of us. Get a clue, they have the same DNA, same motivations. All these leeches do it take money out of the economy that should go to workers and entrepenuers.

Vastet wrote:

More lies. I've told you hundreds of times that socialism doesn't necessarily give everyone the same income. By definition you wouldn't get anything if you weren't willing to work under socialism. But you have to keep making shit up yearafter year and make the exact same fool of yourself over and over again. I'd feel sorry for you, but you're a psychopath and a parasite on top of being a pathalogical liar.

No, you just want to make personal attacks rather than defend you so called logic. Simple question how does eliminated or reducing an income disparity fix the root cause of the disparity?

The goverment gets involved in the free market when it comes to health care and education and we've seen is massive increases in the prices ever since they get involved. Wealth redistribution can only treat symptoms but not the cause.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Really? here in

EXC wrote:
Really? here in the USA, if I buy 100 gallons of milk or gasoline, I pay 100x more than if I buy one. If I wash 10 cars, it cost 10x one car. How does it work in Canada?

Learn English retard, you aren't making any sense. Also, you use your milk and gas then return it? That breaks all the laws of physics. Congratulations on attaining godhood. Care to pass on the secret?

EXC wrote:
Why do govenment bearacrat planners have crystal balls that are not available to the peon farmers?

Because it's their job. Do you ask the CEO of a hospital or the janitor to do your surgery, or do you ask a surgeon? Brainless fool.

EXC wrote:
You have this belief that govenment employees are superhuman and more moral than the rest of us

Lies.

EXC wrote:
Get a clue, they have the same DNA, same motivations. All these leeches do it take money out of the economy that should go to workers and entrepenuers.

Says the moron who claims he doesn't consume gas or milk, he just uses and returns it.

EXC wrote:
No, you just want to make personal attacks rather than defend you so called logic.

Unlike idiots akin to yourself, I can do both simultaneously. Grow a brain cell scum.

EXC wrote:
Simple question how does eliminated or reducing an income disparity fix the root cause of the disparity?

If you can't figure out that fixing a root cause fixes a root cause, then you are the dumbest human in the history of the species. Congratulations!

EXC wrote:
The goverment gets involved in the free market when it comes to health care and education and we've seen is massive increases in the prices ever since they get involved. Wealth redistribution can only treat symptoms but not the cause.

Oh look the retard is yet again using failure of capitalism to prove socialism can't work; which only proves the retard is retarded.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.