RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes

RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Real0ne -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/19/2013 6:54:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: How about you let each individual decide on whether or not to pay more taxes? Wouldn't that necessarily include deciding not to pay taxes at all? taxes should be "nearly" completely abolished, and replaced with invoice for services "desired", and or you use it you pay for it, you want government protection you pay for it. no, you would still have roads and schools police and fire departments.

Real0ne -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/19/2013 6:58:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx The "non libs" want a flat tax which the "non libs" consider to be "everyone paying their fair share". So if the concept of everyone paying their fair share is one supported by you, Why this quote: The Lib's talk about "fair share" and other shit. when taxes exceed the absolute bare minimum, the extreem basics, it get more unfair and open to more corruption. tax imposition requires jurisdiction and that jurisdiction was unlawfully acquired by the government. well unless a feudal society is desirable.

DesideriScuri -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/20/2013 5:50:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice LOL! Caught empty-handed, I see. OR, I'm not going to play into anything. If you disagree with me, read some history. You don't have to respond back. I know what you'll find. In this case, doing your own research, IMO, is more important than my picking and choosing a handful of examples. Enjoy.

thompsonx -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/20/2013 8:06:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: Boo fucking hoo. They want to set up loopholes and then they bitch and whine when people find ways around them. If "loophole"=a way around a regulation then why would someone want to find a way around a loophole?[8\|] quote: Why do they do it? Because they want to keep what's theirs. They set up rules and the people react to the rules. That's the way everything works. That's also why most liberal economic plots fail in getting the results they think they'll get. They don't take into account the reaction to the plot. Any validation for this piece of moronic shit? We would like to see examples of "liberal" economic plots that have failed? By extension which are the ones that succeeded since the post says "most" libral economic plots. By contrat what the fuck have the "non liberals" done that is working so well? History is my validation. The word is repudiation not validation. When one post up idiotic mindless tripe it is endemic on the poster to validate the post.

thompsonx -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/20/2013 8:09:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice LOL! Caught empty-handed, I see. OR, I'm not going to play into anything. If you disagree with me, read some history. You don't have to respond back. I know what you'll find. In this case, doing your own research, IMO, is more important than my picking and choosing a handful of examples. Enjoy. Why is it my job to validate peurile idiotic horse shit posted by someone else?

DesideriScuri -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/20/2013 9:39:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: Boo fucking hoo. They want to set up loopholes and then they bitch and whine when people find ways around them. If "loophole"=a way around a regulation then why would someone want to find a way around a loophole?[8\|] quote: Why do they do it? Because they want to keep what's theirs. They set up rules and the people react to the rules. That's the way everything works. That's also why most liberal economic plots fail in getting the results they think they'll get. They don't take into account the reaction to the plot. Any validation for this piece of moronic shit? We would like to see examples of "liberal" economic plots that have failed? By extension which are the ones that succeeded since the post says "most" libral economic plots. By contrat what the fuck have the "non liberals" done that is working so well? History is my validation. The word is repudiation not validation. When one post up idiotic mindless tripe it is endemic on the poster to validate the post. I agree completely. Any time you want to validate any of your posts, feel free. [8D]

DesideriScuri -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/20/2013 9:41:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Why is it my job to validate peurile idiotic horse shit posted by someone else? I'm just going to start by saying that the post you are responding to was in response to a post by DC, and you have already made a comment along these lines that I responded to (but after you posted this one). So, allow this to go to the intended recipient, and continue on your way.

thompsonx -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/20/2013 9:47:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: Boo fucking hoo. They want to set up loopholes and then they bitch and whine when people find ways around them. If "loophole"=a way around a regulation then why would someone want to find a way around a loophole?[8\|] quote: Why do they do it? Because they want to keep what's theirs. They set up rules and the people react to the rules. That's the way everything works. That's also why most liberal economic plots fail in getting the results they think they'll get. They don't take into account the reaction to the plot. Any validation for this piece of moronic shit? We would like to see examples of "liberal" economic plots that have failed? By extension which are the ones that succeeded since the post says "most" libral economic plots. By contrat what the fuck have the "non liberals" done that is working so well? History is my validation. The word is repudiation not validation. When one post up idiotic mindless tripe it is endemic on the poster to validate the post. I agree completely. Any time you want to validate any of your posts, feel free. [8D] If you can't show where I have failed to validate what I post this would then be another lie.

thompsonx -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/20/2013 9:49:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Why is it my job to validate peurile idiotic horse shit posted by someone else? I'm just going to start by saying that the post you are responding to was in response to a post by DC, and you have already made a comment along these lines that I responded to (but after you posted this one). So, allow this to go to the intended recipient, and continue on your way. The question still stands: Why is it my job to validate the peurile,idiotic horse shit posted by someone else

DesideriScuri -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/20/2013 10:32:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I agree completely. Any time you want to validate any of your posts, feel free. [8D] If you can't show where I have failed to validate what I post this would then be another lie. Are you saying I don't agree, then?

thompsonx -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/20/2013 11:57:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I agree completely. Any time you want to validate any of your posts, feel free. [8D] If you can't show where I have failed to validate what I post this would then be another lie. Are you saying I don't agree, then? I am saying that it is your job to validate your posts. If you cannot or will not then they remain opinion

DesideriScuri -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/20/2013 1:07:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I agree completely. Any time you want to validate any of your posts, feel free. [8D] If you can't show where I have failed to validate what I post this would then be another lie. Are you saying I don't agree, then? I am saying that it is your job to validate your posts. If you cannot or will not then they remain opinion Feel free to ignore any and all opinions and/or facts coming from me in the future. I will continue to laugh at your general flailing and failing.

TheMajesticWorm -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/20/2013 1:40:35 PM)
Ohh you poor "libs" in the States having to deal with fuckwits like this! I am from the UK, Scottish and a green socialist (I know socialist is a dirty word in the States, but that's just because of your governments propaganda) - JK's a great example of why the Welfare State exists and a great leftie. I'm going to go further and suggest that even the chronically unemployed should be supported - it is not after all, their children's fault that their family is in a cycle of unemployment and poverty. What you all seem to be missing out on about the original post is that in the UK, money isn't simply "handed out" to the poor - the government has (though unfortunately the Tories are trying to dismantle it) a network of services for the disadvantaged - all aimed at ending the cycle of unemployment and poverty - sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but I personally would rather pay more tax than know that people were starving to death in my country - all because people wanted to keep money they didn't need. @DesideriScuri I can't take you seriously, you're just too fucking stupid. When you suggested the mentally ill be put to manual labour (uhh, hello, concentration camp-like anyone?) I knew you were either a troll or mentally-disabled yourself.

DesideriScuri -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/20/2013 2:19:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheMajesticWorm Ohh you poor "libs" in the States having to deal with fuckwits like this! I am from the UK, Scottish and a green socialist (I know socialist is a dirty word in the States, but that's just because of your governments propaganda) - JK's a great example of why the Welfare State exists and a great leftie. I'm going to go further and suggest that even the chronically unemployed should be supported - it is not after all, their children's fault that their family is in a cycle of unemployment and poverty. What you all seem to be missing out on about the original post is that in the UK, money isn't simply "handed out" to the poor - the government has (though unfortunately the Tories are trying to dismantle it) a network of services for the disadvantaged - all aimed at ending the cycle of unemployment and poverty - sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but I personally would rather pay more tax than know that people were starving to death in my country - all because people wanted to keep money they didn't need. @DesideriScuri I can't take you seriously, you're just too fucking stupid. When you suggested the mentally ill be put to manual labour (uhh, hello, concentration camp-like anyone?) I knew you were either a troll or mentally-disabled yourself. Ah, the new poster is accusing someone of being a troll.... how quaint. How do you get that I think the mentally ill be put to manual labor?

fucktoyprincess -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/20/2013 2:27:49 PM)
FR Many take aways from this. Not everyone who is on welfare remains on welfare forever (but by the same token not everyone wins the lottery either). People on welfare are entitled to spend their money how they see fit (even if that means buying a coffee at a coffee shop and writing a novel). We are all in the system together - and at any point could be on one or the other side of the equation. At the end of the day it doesn't matter if all welfare recipients end up on their own two feet, or not, because this cannot always be controlled. At the end of day it does matter how we treat the weakest members of our society. In addition, I will say this. Her comments are partly directed to the many people in European countries who are fleeing to low/no tax jurisdictions in order to avoid paying tax in their home country. And I would say this, even if one was not on welfare, I think it is safe to say that most people growing up in countries such as the U.K. or France benefitted hugely from government subsidies of other sorts. In other words, all people in economies where the government helps pay for medical care, education, maternity leave, etc. are receiving a benefit from being a part of that system. Why should she feel any more obligated than anyone else in the U.K. towards the overall system? Isn't everyone, in a way, benefitting? And shouldn't everyone, therefore, support the overall system (not just financially, but philosophically, too)? We ARE all in this together. And those who think otherwise, and decide to destroy the boat, will be sinking alongside the rest of us.

TheMajesticWorm -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/20/2013 2:36:53 PM)
@DesideriScuri Well the bit where you said that those who were physically fit but mentally unable to work be sent fruit picking was the biggest clue.

TheMajesticWorm -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/20/2013 2:44:07 PM)
Oh and fucktoyprincess - well said.

thompsonx -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/20/2013 3:39:31 PM)
quote: Feel free to ignore any and all opinions and weerx for me. quote: or facts coming from me in the future. Haven't seen many of those. quote: I will continue to laugh That is not the same as being able to validate ones sources but then I guess every body needs a hobby.

DesideriScuri -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/20/2013 3:48:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheMajesticWorm @DesideriScuri Well the bit where you said that those who were physically fit but mentally unable to work be sent fruit picking was the biggest clue. Ooh, show me where I said that. I'll have a response all ready for it...

TheMajesticWorm -> RE: An Interesting Take on Welfare and Taxes (5/20/2013 4:13:40 PM)
Ohh dear, apologies, another of you crackpot conservatives made that remark. I got confused because you were both so wrong. I didn't think there could be two seperate people so silly! I did enjoy the part where you were shocked that "fair share" was subjective.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125