Biden To Forgive $10k In Student Loans (2 Viewers)

[The Commish]

we agree on the bolded

the answer isn't to hire 87000 more IRS agents to hunt people down to take more taxes from them

No...the reason for the 87K IRS agents is to help collect on the $1T we lose out on every single year because we don't have enough people in place to enforce our bloated tax code.

Again, you make it sound like it's the governments money. It's my money. It's your money. And here comes the government to take our lunch money because they say so. Taxation is theft.

I'm as fiscally conservative as most staunch fiscal conservatives, but the bold is just legally errant. It's not theft when the populace consents to living in the jurisdictions with such taxes and the government is comprised of elected officials stemming from the populace.

To use your analogy, taxation is simply akin to somebody going out for lunch and having to pay the bill as advertised on the menu or whatever. I assume you don't think it's "theft" of the eatery to charge for the lunch provided after having given fair and adequate notice of the cost, right?

If you genuinely think taxation is theft I seriously hope you never:
- drive on public roads that don't have a separate toll
- expect police, firefighters, and our military to respond/protect you when you need it
- go to libraries
- use free wifi hosted by a municipality or other government agencies
- send your kid to public schools
- etc.

I am more than willing to pay for use of local services on an as needed basis.

I don't use libraries, my kids don't go to public school, I don't use public wifi or have a need to (I have unlimited data). Anything else I should pay for that I don't use?

Now that I think about it, maybe we should do an a la carte service payment plan (you can call it paying taxes). I'll pay for those services that I wish to participate in to get a tax bill at the end of the year and those services that I don't want or need, I don't have to pay for.

Does this include paying the subsidized (federal and/or state) cost gap for things you DO consume? Personally, I'd stop while I was behind. I don't think you realize the path you're on.

 

[Zow]

we agree on the bolded

the answer isn't to hire 87000 more IRS agents to hunt people down to take more taxes from them

No...the reason for the 87K IRS agents is to help collect on the $1T we lose out on every single year because we don't have enough people in place to enforce our bloated tax code.

Again, you make it sound like it's the governments money. It's my money. It's your money. And here comes the government to take our lunch money because they say so. Taxation is theft.

I'm as fiscally conservative as most staunch fiscal conservatives, but the bold is just legally errant. It's not theft when the populace consents to living in the jurisdictions with such taxes and the government is comprised of elected officials stemming from the populace.

To use your analogy, taxation is simply akin to somebody going out for lunch and having to pay the bill as advertised on the menu or whatever. I assume you don't think it's "theft" of the eatery to charge for the lunch provided after having given fair and adequate notice of the cost, right?

If you genuinely think taxation is theft I seriously hope you never:
- drive on public roads that don't have a separate toll
- expect police, firefighters, and our military to respond/protect you when you need it
- go to libraries
- use free wifi hosted by a municipality or other government agencies
- send your kid to public schools
- etc.

I am more than willing to pay for use of local services on an as needed basis.

I don't use libraries, my kids don't go to public school, I don't use public wifi or have a need to (I have unlimited data). Anything else I should pay for that I don't use?

Now that I think about it, maybe we should do an a la carte service payment plan (you can call it paying taxes). I'll pay for those services that I wish to participate in to get a tax bill at the end of the year and those services that I don't want or need, I don't have to pay for.

In theory I'm fine with this.

That said, we'd have to, as a practical matter, hire a heck of a lot more than 87k additional IRS agents to make sure that people are being honest about what services they used.*



*And, of course, herein lies the practical rub. In theory your proposal is a good and fair one, it would just be cost-prohibitive to regulate. It would also probably require some automatic services that everybody uses (e.g. military, law enforcement, courts, planning and zoning, etc.) be built in. As such, for practical reasons, the current system is just more cost-effective.

 

[Gatorman]

I am more than willing to pay for use of local services on an as needed basis.

I don't use libraries, my kids don't go to public school, I don't use public wifi or have a need to (I have unlimited data). Anything else I should pay for that I don't use?

Now that I think about it, maybe we should do an a la carte service payment plan (you can call it paying taxes). I'll pay for those services that I wish to participate in to get a tax bill at the end of the year and those services that I don't want or need, I don't have to pay for.

Well, thats great. I do not want to pay for the military. Or to use my tax base in Florida to pay those states that get more services than what I pay for. So automatically California and New york (who susbsidilze a lot of other states) now do not have to pay federal income taxes. We are on an NFL message board. I'm sure Jerry Jones doesn't want to revenue share to help pay for Green Bay but guess what, thats the price you pay to be an nfl owner. Same thing goes into paying your taxes.

 

[Zow]

Dammit Zow. You make so much sense then have to ruin it by continuing to self identify as a “fiscal conservative”.

Who knows, this board tells me all the time that I'm not what I think I am (or used to identify as).

I say "fiscal conservative" because I'm generally opposed to unnecessary government spending. Where that statement goes awry politically is that such a sentiment means things like "border patrol costs are too high," "we should reduce our military expenditures," "we should permit abortions because that's more cost-effective than government helping raise the child," "let's decriminalize drugs to reduce prison costs," "holy **** the Arizona lawsuit challenging the election is ****ing stupid and a waste of money," etc. These are, of course, suggestions that GOP/Trump "conservatives" don't agree with.

 

[parasaurolophus]

They always are pitching rolling back capital gains taxes. Do you know may poor people that are excited about that tax cut?

the people paying all the taxes will get the highest tax breaks .... that's common sense isn't it ?

So you agree that they do campaign on cutting taxes?

Good reading for you.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Dammit Zow. You make so much sense then have to ruin it by continuing to self identify as a “fiscal conservative”.

Who knows, this board tells me all the time that I'm not what I think I am (or used to identify as).

I say "fiscal conservative" because I'm generally opposed to unnecessary government spending. Where that statement goes awry politically is that such a sentiment means things like "border patrol costs are too high," "we should reduce our military expenditures," "we should permit abortions because that's more cost-effective than government helping raise the child," "let's decriminalize drugs to reduce prison costs," "holy **** the Arizona lawsuit challenging the election is ****ing stupid and a waste of money," etc. These are, of course, suggestions that GOP/Trump "conservatives" don't agree with.

W/re to the bold, pretty sure 95% of the Democratic Party believes that too. The idea that Democrats don’t care about spending is a conservative political myth.

 

[Zow]

Dammit Zow. You make so much sense then have to ruin it by continuing to self identify as a “fiscal conservative”.

Who knows, this board tells me all the time that I'm not what I think I am (or used to identify as).

I say "fiscal conservative" because I'm generally opposed to unnecessary government spending. Where that statement goes awry politically is that such a sentiment means things like "border patrol costs are too high," "we should reduce our military expenditures," "we should permit abortions because that's more cost-effective than government helping raise the child," "let's decriminalize drugs to reduce prison costs," "holy **** the Arizona lawsuit challenging the election is ****ing stupid and a waste of money," etc. These are, of course, suggestions that GOP/Trump "conservatives" don't agree with.

W/re to the bold, pretty sure 95% of the Democratic Party believes that too. The idea that Democrats don’t care about spending is a conservative political myth.

Well, in fairness, I do imagine that there are some things that I would deem to be "unnecessary"* that the Democratic party wouldn't, but yeah I have never thought that either party would just intentionally blow money. I use the term "unnecessary" in a more generic sense there.


*Universal healthcare, a significant portion of the welfare system, public colleges are some examples. That said, I understand the argument in favor of government spending money on these things, I just respectfully disagree that they should fall within the purvey of what government should be doing and spending collective funds on.

 

[Snotbubbles]

we agree on the bolded

the answer isn't to hire 87000 more IRS agents to hunt people down to take more taxes from them

No...the reason for the 87K IRS agents is to help collect on the $1T we lose out on every single year because we don't have enough people in place to enforce our bloated tax code.

Again, you make it sound like it's the governments money. It's my money. It's your money. And here comes the government to take our lunch money because they say so. Taxation is theft.

I'm as fiscally conservative as most staunch fiscal conservatives, but the bold is just legally errant. It's not theft when the populace consents to living in the jurisdictions with such taxes and the government is comprised of elected officials stemming from the populace.

To use your analogy, taxation is simply akin to somebody going out for lunch and having to pay the bill as advertised on the menu or whatever. I assume you don't think it's "theft" of the eatery to charge for the lunch provided after having given fair and adequate notice of the cost, right?

If you genuinely think taxation is theft I seriously hope you never:
- drive on public roads that don't have a separate toll
- expect police, firefighters, and our military to respond/protect you when you need it
- go to libraries
- use free wifi hosted by a municipality or other government agencies
- send your kid to public schools
- etc.

I am more than willing to pay for use of local services on an as needed basis.

I don't use libraries, my kids don't go to public school, I don't use public wifi or have a need to (I have unlimited data). Anything else I should pay for that I don't use?

Now that I think about it, maybe we should do an a la carte service payment plan (you can call it paying taxes). I'll pay for those services that I wish to participate in to get a tax bill at the end of the year and those services that I don't want or need, I don't have to pay for.

In theory I'm fine with this.

That said, we'd have to, as a practical matter, hire a heck of a lot more than 87k additional IRS agents to make sure that people are being honest about what services they used.*



*And, of course, herein lies the practical rub. In theory your proposal is a good and fair one, it would just be cost-prohibitive to regulate. It would also probably require some automatic services that everybody uses (e.g. military, law enforcement, courts, planning and zoning, etc.) be built in. As such, for practical reasons, the current system is just more cost-effective.

You just make usage fees. Like for infrastructure you have taxes on gasoline (already in place) and tolls. For police, fire, sanitation, schools you have real estate taxes.

In Philly we also have vice taxes (sugar, alcohol, cigarettes), metered parking in residential areas where you have to buy a parking permit to park on the street in front of your house or you get ticketed, city wage tax (even if you don't work in the city you pay the wage tax for living here), sales tax, federal income tax, social security tax... Where does it end?

 

[Zow]

we agree on the bolded

the answer isn't to hire 87000 more IRS agents to hunt people down to take more taxes from them

No...the reason for the 87K IRS agents is to help collect on the $1T we lose out on every single year because we don't have enough people in place to enforce our bloated tax code.

Again, you make it sound like it's the governments money. It's my money. It's your money. And here comes the government to take our lunch money because they say so. Taxation is theft.

I'm as fiscally conservative as most staunch fiscal conservatives, but the bold is just legally errant. It's not theft when the populace consents to living in the jurisdictions with such taxes and the government is comprised of elected officials stemming from the populace.

To use your analogy, taxation is simply akin to somebody going out for lunch and having to pay the bill as advertised on the menu or whatever. I assume you don't think it's "theft" of the eatery to charge for the lunch provided after having given fair and adequate notice of the cost, right?

If you genuinely think taxation is theft I seriously hope you never:
- drive on public roads that don't have a separate toll
- expect police, firefighters, and our military to respond/protect you when you need it
- go to libraries
- use free wifi hosted by a municipality or other government agencies
- send your kid to public schools
- etc.

I am more than willing to pay for use of local services on an as needed basis.

I don't use libraries, my kids don't go to public school, I don't use public wifi or have a need to (I have unlimited data). Anything else I should pay for that I don't use?

Now that I think about it, maybe we should do an a la carte service payment plan (you can call it paying taxes). I'll pay for those services that I wish to participate in to get a tax bill at the end of the year and those services that I don't want or need, I don't have to pay for.

In theory I'm fine with this.

That said, we'd have to, as a practical matter, hire a heck of a lot more than 87k additional IRS agents to make sure that people are being honest about what services they used.*



*And, of course, herein lies the practical rub. In theory your proposal is a good and fair one, it would just be cost-prohibitive to regulate. It would also probably require some automatic services that everybody uses (e.g. military, law enforcement, courts, planning and zoning, etc.) be built in. As such, for practical reasons, the current system is just more cost-effective.

You just make usage fees. Like for infrastructure you have taxes on gasoline (already in place) and tolls. For police, fire, sanitation, schools you have real estate taxes.

In Philly we also have vice taxes (sugar, alcohol, cigarettes), metered parking in residential areas where you have to buy a parking permit to park on the street in front of your house or you get ticketed, city wage tax (even if you don't work in the city you pay the wage tax for living here), sales tax, federal income tax, social security tax... Where does it end?

Military, law enforcement, infrastructure, etc.

 

[Stealthycat]

I don't know if "allow" is the correct term, but I'd fully support a policy whereby we give undocumented people tax ID numbers so they can pay taxes in exchange for some sort of set time they may remain in the country. Treat it like a work VISA.

they already have that but why in the world would anyone apply for that and pay a good portion of their income to the US Govt ?

nobody here would pay taxes unless they were forced too ........... we would all opt out if given the chance

 

[Sand]

Well, thats great. I do not want to pay for the military. Or to use my tax base in Florida to pay those states that get more services than what I pay for. So automatically California and New york (who susbsidilze a lot of other states) now do not have to pay federal income taxes. We are on an NFL message board. I'm sure Jerry Jones doesn't want to revenue share to help pay for Green Bay but guess what, thats the price you pay to be an nfl owner. Same thing goes into paying your taxes.

There are a lot of folks who don't. What they don't realize is that the reason we're the richest country the world has ever seen is because of this military. I prefer to not have the standard of living of an Argentina or Albania, so I take the opposite tack.

 

[supermike80]

I don't know if "allow" is the correct term, but I'd fully support a policy whereby we give undocumented people tax ID numbers so they can pay taxes in exchange for some sort of set time they may remain in the country. Treat it like a work VISA.

they already have that but why in the world would anyone apply for that and pay a good portion of their income to the US Govt ?

nobody here would pay taxes unless they were forced too ........... we would all opt out if given the chance

Oh the mob freaks out when they find out the rich are legally avoiding taxes, even though they absolutely would do the same thing if they could.

 

[That one guy]

Is it okay if I just toss out “fair tax” and leave without any supporting links/studies because I’m lazy and on phone? I have read the book and have read other articles on it, so I can at least say I know what it is and still support it

 

[Zow]

I don't know if "allow" is the correct term, but I'd fully support a policy whereby we give undocumented people tax ID numbers so they can pay taxes in exchange for some sort of set time they may remain in the country. Treat it like a work VISA.

they already have that but why in the world would anyone apply for that and pay a good portion of their income to the US Govt ?

nobody here would pay taxes unless they were forced too ........... we would all opt out if given the chance

For the services doing so provides and to keep the government off its back?

While anecdotal, I've directed interacted with several undocumented residents who would happily pay their taxes if it meant assholes like Sherriff Joe Arpaio would leave them alone.

 

[whoknew]

I don't know if "allow" is the correct term, but I'd fully support a policy whereby we give undocumented people tax ID numbers so they can pay taxes in exchange for some sort of set time they may remain in the country. Treat it like a work VISA.

they already have that but why in the world would anyone apply for that and pay a good portion of their income to the US Govt ?

nobody here would pay taxes unless they were forced too ........... we would all opt out if given the chance

Because they need it to get a job.

 

[Stealthycat]

For the services doing so provides and to keep the government off its back?

While anecdotal, I've directed interacted with several undocumented residents who would happily pay their taxes if it meant assholes like Sherriff Joe Arpaio would leave them alone.

"would" ....... but they don't, do they ?

 

[Zow]

For the services doing so provides and to keep the government off its back?

While anecdotal, I've directed interacted with several undocumented residents who would happily pay their taxes if it meant assholes like Sherriff Joe Arpaio would leave them alone.

"would" ....... but they don't, do they ?

They don’t have that option. Why do you think they do?

 

[Snotbubbles]

For the services doing so provides and to keep the government off its back?

While anecdotal, I've directed interacted with several undocumented residents who would happily pay their taxes if it meant assholes like Sherriff Joe Arpaio would leave them alone.

"would" ....... but they don't, do they ?

They don’t have that option. Why do you think they do?

@Zow when you say undocumented, is that code for illegal or are there layers to people being here without proper documentation? Like is there a difference between someone who overstays a work visa and someone who is a got-away border crosser. Serious question, I'm not familiar enough with the issue.

 

[John123]

For the services doing so provides and to keep the government off its back?

While anecdotal, I've directed interacted with several undocumented residents who would happily pay their taxes if it meant assholes like Sherriff Joe Arpaio would leave them alone.

"would" ....... but they don't, do they ?

They don’t have that option. Why do you think they do?

Wait, are you saying illegals don't have the option to pay taxes? Of course they do, at least federally:

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/facts-about-individual-taxpayer-identification-number-itin

 

[Stealthycat]

They don’t have that option. Why do you think they do?

I agree, they shouldn't be here illegally and working illegally, 100% I agree

 

[Zow]

For the services doing so provides and to keep the government off its back?

While anecdotal, I've directed interacted with several undocumented residents who would happily pay their taxes if it meant assholes like Sherriff Joe Arpaio would leave them alone.

"would" ....... but they don't, do they ?

They don’t have that option. Why do you think they do?

@Zow when you say undocumented, is that code for illegal or are there layers to people being here without proper documentation? Like is there a difference between someone who overstays a work visa and someone who is a got-away border crosser. Serious question, I'm not familiar enough with the issue.

I'm talking about individuals who are in the country without documented permission (e.g. current visa).

FWIW, I find the term "illegals" to be legally myopic and constitutionally errant - since a person cannot in of himself be a violation of the law and in his actions may arguably not be violating a law. A person may have committed the federal crimes of illegal entry and illegal re-entry, or may be in violation of his VISA limitations, but calling him an "illegal" is just inflammatory and childish.

 

[Zow]

For the services doing so provides and to keep the government off its back?

While anecdotal, I've directed interacted with several undocumented residents who would happily pay their taxes if it meant assholes like Sherriff Joe Arpaio would leave them alone.

"would" ....... but they don't, do they ?

They don’t have that option. Why do you think they do?

Wait, are you saying illegals don't have the option to pay taxes? Of course they do, at least federally:

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/facts-about-individual-taxpayer-identification-number-itin

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying they likely don't have the option of immediately working out an agreement to pay taxes with some limited immunity from investigation as to their status.

While I'm not an immigration attorney, I have tangentially worked with immigration attorneys and considered such issues in my line of work. This was especially prevalent during the Sheriff Joe days in the Phoenix area where AZ passed the unconstitutional reasonable suspicion law and where the policy from the local officials aligned with ICE where if an undocumented person tried to file law enforcement would then investigate the person and possible arrest him.

 

[Zow]

They don’t have that option. Why do you think they do?

I agree, they shouldn't be here illegally and working illegally, 100% I agree

I have no idea what you're agreeing with.

 

[djmich]

For the services doing so provides and to keep the government off its back?

While anecdotal, I've directed interacted with several undocumented residents who would happily pay their taxes if it meant assholes like Sherriff Joe Arpaio would leave them alone.

"would" ....... but they don't, do they ?

They don’t have that option. Why do you think they do?

@Zow when you say undocumented, is that code for illegal or are there layers to people being here without proper documentation? Like is there a difference between someone who overstays a work visa and someone who is a got-away border crosser. Serious question, I'm not familiar enough with the issue.

I'm talking about individuals who are in the country without documented permission (e.g. current visa).

FWIW, I find the term "illegals" to be legally myopic and constitutionally errant - since a person cannot in of himself be a violation of the law and in his actions may arguably not be violating a law. A person may have committed the federal crimes of illegal entry and illegal re-entry, or may be in violation of his VISA limitations, but calling him an "illegal" is just inflammatory and childish.

What about illegal alien?

 

[Zow]

For the services doing so provides and to keep the government off its back?

While anecdotal, I've directed interacted with several undocumented residents who would happily pay their taxes if it meant assholes like Sherriff Joe Arpaio would leave them alone.

"would" ....... but they don't, do they ?

They don’t have that option. Why do you think they do?

@Zow when you say undocumented, is that code for illegal or are there layers to people being here without proper documentation? Like is there a difference between someone who overstays a work visa and someone who is a got-away border crosser. Serious question, I'm not familiar enough with the issue.

I'm talking about individuals who are in the country without documented permission (e.g. current visa).

FWIW, I find the term "illegals" to be legally myopic and constitutionally errant - since a person cannot in of himself be a violation of the law and in his actions may arguably not be violating a law. A person may have committed the federal crimes of illegal entry and illegal re-entry, or may be in violation of his VISA limitations, but calling him an "illegal" is just inflammatory and childish.

What about illegal alien?

While that term is still included in some of the codified language in some statutes,* courts and legal professionals have transitioned to using the term "noncitizen."

For comparison's sake, "mentally retarded" and "mental retardation" are also still terms codified in some statutes.

 

[djmich]

Thanks. I t

For the services doing so provides and to keep the government off its back?

While anecdotal, I've directed interacted with several undocumented residents who would happily pay their taxes if it meant assholes like Sherriff Joe Arpaio would leave them alone.

"would" ....... but they don't, do they ?

They don’t have that option. Why do you think they do?

@Zow when you say undocumented, is that code for illegal or are there layers to people being here without proper documentation? Like is there a difference between someone who overstays a work visa and someone who is a got-away border crosser. Serious question, I'm not familiar enough with the issue.

I'm talking about individuals who are in the country without documented permission (e.g. current visa).

FWIW, I find the term "illegals" to be legally myopic and constitutionally errant - since a person cannot in of himself be a violation of the law and in his actions may arguably not be violating a law. A person may have committed the federal crimes of illegal entry and illegal re-entry, or may be in violation of his VISA limitations, but calling him an "illegal" is just inflammatory and childish.

What about illegal alien?

While that term is still included in some of the codified language in some statutes,* courts and legal professionals have transitioned to using the term "noncitizen."

For comparison's sake, "mentally retarded" and "mental retardation" are also still terms codified in some statutes.

Thanks, I think your comparison is a relevant one.

Neither are inherently bad words but obviously retarded had devolved over time to cruel slang.

I think noncitizen isn’t really a great substitute and that can describe many people here, including people that are not violating any laws but are not citizens. “Undocumented” is the right direction but still too obtuse to describe people that are are here and don’t have a legal right to be here. I know people that are here illegally don’t want to be called illegal aliens…but I don’t think comparing that desire (which they chose to be here illegally) to demeaning people born with a genetic disability is a great comp and I can’t agree with the conclusion that it’s childish to call them that. Shorthand slang “illegal” yah I’d move away from that.

 

[Zow]

Thanks. I t

For the services doing so provides and to keep the government off its back?

While anecdotal, I've directed interacted with several undocumented residents who would happily pay their taxes if it meant assholes like Sherriff Joe Arpaio would leave them alone.

"would" ....... but they don't, do they ?

They don’t have that option. Why do you think they do?

@Zow when you say undocumented, is that code for illegal or are there layers to people being here without proper documentation? Like is there a difference between someone who overstays a work visa and someone who is a got-away border crosser. Serious question, I'm not familiar enough with the issue.

I'm talking about individuals who are in the country without documented permission (e.g. current visa).

FWIW, I find the term "illegals" to be legally myopic and constitutionally errant - since a person cannot in of himself be a violation of the law and in his actions may arguably not be violating a law. A person may have committed the federal crimes of illegal entry and illegal re-entry, or may be in violation of his VISA limitations, but calling him an "illegal" is just inflammatory and childish.

What about illegal alien?

While that term is still included in some of the codified language in some statutes,* courts and legal professionals have transitioned to using the term "noncitizen."

For comparison's sake, "mentally retarded" and "mental retardation" are also still terms codified in some statutes.

Thanks, I think your comparison is a relevant one.

Neither are inherently bad words but obviously retarded had devolved over time to cruel slang.

I think noncitizen isn’t really a great substitute and that can describe many people here, including people that are not violating any laws but are not citizens. “Undocumented” is the right direction but still too obtuse to describe people that are are here and don’t have a legal right to be here. I know people that are here illegally don’t want to be called illegal aliens…but I don’t think comparing that desire (which they chose to be here illegally) to demeaning people born with a genetic disability is a great comp and I can’t agree with the conclusion that it’s childish to call them that. Shorthand slang “illegal” yah I’d move away from that.

I appreciate your response. I agree that "illegal alien" isn't an inherently bad word like the N-word. You're certainly free to keep using the term and professionals will likely continue to immediately judge you for it and likely take you less seriously when you do. But those are certainly two free actions in our country.

 

[Stealthycat]

I have no idea what you're agreeing with.

"they" had the option of not coming to the USA illegally, and instead they did. The choice to come here illegally cascades to other illegal things as well, like not working here legally, not paying taxes which is illegal etc etc

the core problem is coming here illegally

 

[Zow]

I have no idea what you're agreeing with.

"they" had the option of not coming to the USA illegally, and instead they did. The choice to come here illegally cascades to other illegal things as well, like not working here legally, not paying taxes which is illegal etc etc

the core problem is coming here illegally

I never posited that.

 

[Gatorman]

Well, thats great. I do not want to pay for the military. Or to use my tax base in Florida to pay those states that get more services than what I pay for. So automatically California and New york (who susbsidilze a lot of other states) now do not have to pay federal income taxes. We are on an NFL message board. I'm sure Jerry Jones doesn't want to revenue share to help pay for Green Bay but guess what, thats the price you pay to be an nfl owner. Same thing goes into paying your taxes.

There are a lot of folks who don't. What they don't realize is that the reason we're the richest country the world has ever seen is because of this military. I prefer to not have the standard of living of an Argentina or Albania, so I take the opposite tack.

Sand: I was being a bit sarcastic. Taxes are needed because there are things people DO NOT want to pay for but are needed in any case. Argentina and Brazil are good examples of the differences between the haves and have nots and I agree I'd rather not have to worry about my kids being kidnapped as a source of income for someone bc my country has a social safety net.

 

[McBokonon]

we agree on the bolded

the answer isn't to hire 87000 more IRS agents to hunt people down to take more taxes from them

No...the reason for the 87K IRS agents is to help collect on the $1T we lose out on every single year because we don't have enough people in place to enforce our bloated tax code.

Again, you make it sound like it's the governments money. It's my money. It's your money. And here comes the government to take our lunch money because they say so. Taxation is theft.

I'm as fiscally conservative as most staunch fiscal conservatives, but the bold is just legally errant. It's not theft when the populace consents to living in the jurisdictions with such taxes and the government is comprised of elected officials stemming from the populace.

To use your analogy, taxation is simply akin to somebody going out for lunch and having to pay the bill as advertised on the menu or whatever. I assume you don't think it's "theft" of the eatery to charge for the lunch provided after having given fair and adequate notice of the cost, right?

If you genuinely think taxation is theft I seriously hope you never:
- drive on public roads that don't have a separate toll
- expect police, firefighters, and our military to respond/protect you when you need it
- go to libraries
- use free wifi hosted by a municipality or other government agencies
- send your kid to public schools
- etc.

I am more than willing to pay for use of local services on an as needed basis.

I don't use libraries, my kids don't go to public school, I don't use public wifi or have a need to (I have unlimited data). Anything else I should pay for that I don't use?

Now that I think about it, maybe we should do an a la carte service payment plan (you can call it paying taxes). I'll pay for those services that I wish to participate in to get a tax bill at the end of the year and those services that I don't want or need, I don't have to pay for.

Luckily not everyone is as self-centered and selfish as this. A lot of people don’t mind contributing to the community.

 

[Stealthycat]

Luckily not everyone is as self-centered and selfish as this. A lot of people don’t mind contributing to the community.

feels good to know citizens have contributed as much as we have and the Govt has spent 32 trillion more

doesn't it ?

 

[McBokonon]

Luckily not everyone is as self-centered and selfish as this. A lot of people don’t mind contributing to the community.

feels good to know citizens have contributed as much as we have and the Govt has spent 32 trillion more

doesn't it ?

He was specifically talking about not wanting to contribute to helping others. Not a word about poor money management.

 

[Stealthycat]

He was specifically talking about not wanting to contribute to helping others. Not a word about poor money management.

define helping others?

we all have vastly different views on how our tax dollars are spent by the Govt .......... 32 trillion more than it's brought in BTW