Whoops - Joe the Plumber Hasn't Paid His Taxes!

POSTED BY: Kwicko
UPDATED: Sunday, October 26, 2008 22:57
VIEWED: 12667
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

KWICKO

Thursday, October 16, 2008 11:12 PM

Quote:

From the Houston Chronicle:

"Joe the Plumber," the Toledo, Ohio, man whose complaints about Barack Obama's tax plan were featured in the final presidential debate, owes the state of Ohio almost $1,200 in back income taxes.
According to records on file with the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, the state filed a tax lien against Samuel J. Wurzelbacher for $1,182.98 on Jan. 26, 2007, that is still active.

Read the whole story here:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6062246.html

Also, he says Obama tap-dances like Sammy Davis, Jr.

Quote:
In a phone interview with CBS' Katie Couric, Joe Wurzelbacher said Barack Obama "tap dance[d] ... almost as good as Sammy Davis Jr." in their conversation. He also said he didn't actually make enough to fall into the group whose taxes would be raised under Obama -- but argued that it was a "slippery slope."

Read this story here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/16/joe-the-plumber-obama-tap_n_1
35151.html

Also, turns out he's not even a licensed plumber.

Quote:
By Robert Barnes
Joe the Plumber is not exactly a plumber, he's "not even close" to making the kind of money that would result in higher taxes from Democrat Barack Obama's proposals and has such an aversion to taxes that a lien was filed against him by the state of Ohio.

Not all the attention has been welcomed. Wurzelbacher, 34, told the Associated Press that he was not a licensed plumber. Because he works for a small company that does residential work, he said, he doesn't need to be licensed.

Read that story here:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/16/joe_the_plumber_
not_a_licensed.html?hpid=topnews

Mike

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

Trolls Against McCain!

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 16, 2008 11:16 PM

So Joe the Plumber is just another heart-warming right-wing story turned fraud, like Sarah Palin?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 16, 2008 11:33 PM

BUMP!

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

DEADLOCKVICTIM

Thursday, October 16, 2008 11:58 PM

just heard on the evening news - Joe is not licensed to practice his trade in the state of Ohio...

btw..... i was a union pipe fitter for a short span.... the standing joke was that a plumber only needed to know three things,
1) shit runs downhill
2) don't chew your fingernails
and
3) payday is on Friday....

sage advice

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, October 17, 2008 12:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Also, he says Obama tap-dances like Sammy Davis, Jr.

It's just amazing how there's no limit to Barry's talents...

Does this mean we get to call him Obama-Sammy ?

KWICKO

Friday, October 17, 2008 1:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Also, he says Obama tap-dances like Sammy Davis, Jr.

It's just amazing how there's no limit to Barry's talents...

Does this mean we get to call him Obama-Sammy ?

I think it means you get to call him "Mister President".

He can tap dance, and McCain can't even tie his shoes...

AURAPTOR

Friday, October 17, 2008 1:18 PM

It's a far cry from " not paying your taxes " to still owing a paultry $1,200 to the Gov't. This amount works out to less than a tip when he's already paid the rest of the bill. Leave it to the Left to distort and twist the facts.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Friday, October 17, 2008 1:22 PM

"Joe the Plumber":

He's not a licensed plumber.
He makes $40,000 a year.
He's in no position to buy the business...
Which makes only $100,000 a year.
He's a Republican, and always has been.

In other words, the only true thing that he said about himself was his name. He's a Republican plant, and a fraud.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

AURAPTOR

Friday, October 17, 2008 1:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by deadlockvictim:

just heard on the evening news - Joe is not licensed to practice his trade in the state of Ohio...

So, a man does a job for 15 yrs, and some how YOU think the power of the state is necessary for him to do his job ? He's not a doctor, he's not dentist, nor a lawyer......he's a PLUMBER.
Hell, the state will make folks get licenses for cutting hair, if they think it'll raise more revenue. And that's all that licensing is , a racket to raise more $$ on the backs of people.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

DEADLOCKVICTIM

Friday, October 17, 2008 1:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
...only true thing that he said about himself was his name.

ah, actually it's Sam

AURAPTOR

Friday, October 17, 2008 1:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"Joe the Plumber":

He's not a licensed plumber.
He makes $40,000 a year.
He's in no position to buy the business...
Which makes only $100,000 a year.
He's a Republican, and always has been.

In other words, the only true thing that he said about himself was his name. He's a Republican plant, and a fraud.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

Nothing about his is a fraud. He spoke truth. If he ever wants to buy his plumbing business, not today, but in a year or 2, what he said about Barak's tax plan is dead on accurate. It'll hurt him and penalize him if he tries to expand the business.

You see, some folks have ideas about the future which are greater than what they see in the present. It's called........wait for it.... HOPE!!!

Obama is for no hope.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, October 17, 2008 2:21 PM

Yet another flim-flam faerytale from the right wing, what else did you expect ?

Btw - he's also Charles Keatings nephew, by marriage, so it's not like they picked him out of a hat, neither, and if you run down family ties and associations, it gets even more interesting.

Did they REALLY expect this guy to hold up against professional muckrakers, when even an amateur like me could out him in fifteen minutes ?

Pathetic.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

WULFENSTAR

Friday, October 17, 2008 2:28 PM

I disagree.

Whatever his backround...Joe pointed something out.

Obama IS a socialist.

Socialism = BAD for America = Obama is likewise bad for America.

Im not a Republican so don't try it.

I just don't think I should have to pay for Shaniquanas 50 illigetimate, criminal kids.

Don't take MY money to shore up the failed housing in the ghettos/slums, or to "fix" the crime ridden "schools".

Likewise, don't dress up your socialist reperations, as taxes for helping the "poor".

CHRISISALL

Friday, October 17, 2008 2:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Socialism = BAD for America

News flash for ya, Wulfie, America has had strong Socialist leanings since, oh, before you were born...

Pure Democracy? Not gonna happen...this is a Republic which runs on Capitalism which is restrained from becoming completely feudal by Socialism.
See, any 'ism' taken to it's limits will result in totalitarianism of one kind or another, only a blend keeps us sorta free. You wanna reject Socialism out of hand? Cool. Go live in China.

Chrisisall

WULFENSTAR

Friday, October 17, 2008 2:51 PM

Actually, I would prefer a LIBERTARIAN society, Chris.

Where I am FREE to go my own way, WITHOUT having to baby the low people in our society.

Again, why should I give a rats fart about what happens to Moieshshanaquikquegs bastard children?

Don't care.

I don't believe in "raising" another group. It's impossible. Only THEY can do that for themselves.

So, again, dont take MY hard earned cashy money, to support LaQueefa and her brood, or Merle Haggard and his meth addiction.

I don't care what happens to the idiots and the scum. If they pull themselves out, great. if they crash and burn, JUST AS GREAT.

More room, air, and water for me.

HKCAVALIER

Friday, October 17, 2008 2:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
I disagree.

Whatever his backround...Joe pointed something out.

Obama IS a socialist.

Socialism = BAD for America = Obama is likewise bad for America.

Im not a Republican so don't try it.

I just don't think I should have to pay for Shaniquanas 50 illigetimate, criminal kids.

Don't take MY money to shore up the failed housing in the ghettos/slums, or to "fix" the crime ridden "schools".

Likewise, don't dress up your socialist reperations, as taxes for helping the "poor".

Jesus Christ, man--we already have corporate socialism in this country and have had for decades! Wealth redistribution UPWARD. People have been making jokes about Obama's "trickly up" economics, but we've had a river of money flowing thataway for a while now. So, it's evil for rich people to pay more for this system that made them rich and for the wars that the poor fight for them, but it's A-O-K for the poor and middle class to pay for the failed speculation and blunders of corporations and the banks because they have no concept of the word "responsibility." And why should they, if we'll continually pay for their mistakes?

And you have the stones to talke about poor people living off the system??? Dang man, no one gets rich on welfare in this country. No one can live off of unemployment benefits. All that crap about "Shaniquas" is a nasty racist lie started up by the Gipper to make paying taxes sound like paying for deadbeats. Taxes aren't paying for deadbeats, they pay for schools and bridges and wars. Do you REALLY think the government is pouring huge amounts of money into the "ghettos" as you call them? How the heck do you think they remain "ghettos?"

As Dr. Paul so ably pointed out this election cycle, inflation is taxation to bail out the rich. Obama's tax plan is a tiny gesture toward correcting that. Tiny.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

CHRISISALL

Friday, October 17, 2008 3:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Actually, I would prefer a LIBERTARIAN society, Chris.

Me too, actually.

Quote:

Where I am FREE to go my own way, WITHOUT having to baby the low people in our society.

This is typical NeoCon thinking, Wulf, you have to let go of it....true, peeps that play the system to get out of work exist, but don't let the few jerks paint it that way for everyone. Some peeps get a raw deal- bad parents, dead parents, missing limbs, and in our society, where we should all be our brother's keeper, we cannot let them fall, lest we fall ourselves. If we divide it up into us (the good ones) and them (the low ones), we automatically devalue ourselves, for WE could be someone else's them.

Either we're in this together, or it's every man for himself- get yer guns & head fer the hills!

Soapboxisall

WULFENSTAR

Friday, October 17, 2008 3:12 PM

Again, in the same way that I don't want to pay for LaQueefa, I don't want to pay for Wall Street either.

STOP TAKING MY MONEY TO "HELP" THE FAILURES IN OUR SOCIETY.

Let them die off. Let Darwinism happen.

As an edit...I am NOT my brothers keeper, UNLESS I CHOOSE to be. If I CHOOSE to help my 'brother", thats my CHOICE.

Do not FORCE it on me.

CHRISISALL

Friday, October 17, 2008 3:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
I don't want to pay for Wall Street either.

STOP TAKING MY MONEY TO "HELP" THE FAILURES IN OUR SOCIETY.

Let them die off.

They won't.
You and I will pay to keep certain peeps where they want to be, for our entire lives. That is the Golden Rule, my friend. And to blame your fellow man or woman around you is exactly the plan; don't fall for it, Wulf.

Chrisisall

WULFENSTAR

Friday, October 17, 2008 3:25 PM

"You and I will pay to keep certain peeps where they want to be, for our entire lives."

That goes both up AND down the economic ladder.

Im sick of paying for the Wall Street fatcats in the same way Im sick of paying for the low scum.

If the playing field were fair, both of these types would have to actually work.

CHRISISALL

Friday, October 17, 2008 3:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

If the playing field were fair, both of these types would have to actually work.

The peeps that don't have to work are actually fewer than you think, bro. I personally know of like 10 peeps that use foodstamps to back up their druggie lifestyle...that's out of hundreds and hundreds of hard working folk that I see daily. The rich peeps drag more dough out of the system that we pay into than all the welfare-cheaters combined, so I'm just sayin' that if you wanna go all Limbaugh on someone, you might wanna start at the top.

Chrisisallonamission

WULFENSTAR

Friday, October 17, 2008 3:50 PM

*sigh

Im not going all Limbaugh.

My point is, I shouldn't have to pay, thru my income taxes (which are forcibly taken from me) for the low or the high scum. (Wall Street bailout?)

Let them both rot.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 17, 2008 3:59 PM

Wulf, it all depends on the kind of society that you want. Do you want a society where the rich prey on the poor? Do you want a society where people feel cared-for, even if they get sick or are disabled? Do you want "every man for himself and God against all"?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, October 17, 2008 4:06 PM

Do you want "every man for himself and God against all"?

Yes. Except I don't believe that God would be against all. In act, as the "author" of free will...I think God would be for a society based on CHOICE.

I want a society where you keep what you earn. Period. If you want to use some of what you've earned and "spead it around" yourself, you would be free to do so. Or not. It would be YOUR CHOICE.

RUE

Friday, October 17, 2008 4:08 PM

Wulf and SergeantX both think that people can be completely 'free' of society - free of any influence.

I say - give them their freedom. Give them enough shock therapy to erase all the knowledge society has poured into them - how to read, write and figure, and reason; how to talk and walk; how to not poop and pee on themselves; strip them naked and set them off in the wilderness somewhere, away from all of society's restrictions.

FLY AND BE FREE ! DON'T LET US HOLD YOU DOWN !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AGENTROUKA

Friday, October 17, 2008 4:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Do you want "every man for himself and God against all"?

Yes. Except I don't believe that God would be against all. In act, as the "author" of free will...I think God would be for a society based on CHOICE.

I want a society where you keep what you earn. Period. If you want to use some of what you've earned and "spead it around" yourself, you would be free to do so. Or not. It would be YOUR CHOICE.

So you are completely indifferent to the fate of people who, through no fault of their own - I'm not talking about leeches who abuse the system - end up homeless and starving and unable to get any medical care. With their disabled kids and infants and bed-ridden elderly parents?

Or do you rely, ultimately, on the idea that people WILL out of their own free will refrain from throwing them out and letting them starve, through voluntary charity?

I'm not saying this to be judgmental, just to make sure. I've had interesting and eye-opening discussions on these boards before, and usually there is a working system behind people's ideas that doesn't rely on either cruelty or extreme optimism.

Edited for typo correction.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 17, 2008 4:28 PM

Quote:
NEW YORK (CNN) -- In the midst of Wall Street's agonizing slide last week, there was at least one place in Manhattan where the liquor was flowing, the cigar smoke was billowing and the theme of the evening was simple: Work hard. Play hard.

"I was a crook," says Jordan Belfort, once a Wall Street fat cat who made $1 million a week before going to jail.

"It's like fiddling. Nero fiddled while Rome burned," said Thomas Graf, vice president and producer of Northmarq Capital. "We're smoking cigars while we're losing our shirts, literally." He was among hundreds of mid-level Wall Street executives and traders gathered for a party thrown by Cigar Report magazine, published by New York-based Doubledown Media. And if they seemed a little tone-deaf about how this kind of event could be perceived as millions of dollars were lost, at least on paper, most did not seem especially concerned. "It is a great time," said Adam Marsh of Empire Capital Partners. "I think for at least a couple of hours in the evening, we can kind of sit back, have a few drinks, forget what's facing us on the Street tomorrow."

Few of the men and women at the party earned millions in Wall Street bonuses on top of their salaries. But nearly all did very well, they say, at the top of the Wall Street bubble. And their bosses, along with those who managed Wall Street hedge funds, did even better. "These guys were spending more than $250 billion a year," Robert Frank said. "They bought mansions in Greenwich and Palm Beach. They bought art for $100 million a painting."

Frank, author of "Richistan," says the enormous amounts of money earned by Wall Street elite made them practically a nation unto themselves. "They just looked at the guy with the bigger house, the nicer Ferrari, the better artwork," he said. "And it was all competitive spending." One prominent example is the CEO of Lehman Brothers, Richard Fuld. In 2007 alone, according to the executive compensation firm Equilar, he earned total take-home compensation of more than $45 million in salary and bonuses. Congressional researchers said he earned nearly $500 million from 2000 through 2007.

www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/17/siu.wall.street/index.html

I think it is inconcievable to some how very rich the very rich really are. Focusing on ringers like "Joe the Plumber" is beside the point.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, October 17, 2008 4:34 PM

No, I am not completly indifferent to those folks. If there are such folks who are so hard on their luck, then they should be able to go to someplace that would shelter and support them.

These places can be paid for through charity, freely given by the people. We forget that Americans are some of, if not the most, charitable people on the planet.

So. For the few, who thru no fault of their own, nor thru their own stupidity or greed, are without shelter, food, clothing, (and family and friends to help them), there would be charitable organizations for them.

However, without our paychecks being taxed, people would be able to keep all of what they earn. Which, combined with controlled spending habits, would curtail the most extreme poverty.

Think about it. You keep what you earn. In a lot of ways it would serve even the most liberal agenda.

Without as much taxation, the government would not be able to go to war as easily as it does now. Nor support itself in whatever endevor it chooses. It would depend on the people giving their money for it to happen.

In a way, losing the income tax puts complete economic power back in the hands of the people. Where it should be.

So, to be succinct, I am against income taxes. However, until Ron Paul is president, I have to pay said taxes. As such, I am against them being used in ANY social program.

With the sole social exception being education.

CHRISISALL

Friday, October 17, 2008 4:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

I think it is inconcievable to some how very rich the very rich really are.

I really really don't get it...If I had that kind of money, I'd have a freakin' BATCAVE. Or an Iron Man suit. Don't any of these rich f**kin' losers have any comics???? Not ONE ever wanted to be Bruce Wayne???

THAT'S what's inconthievable IMO.

Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, October 17, 2008 4:37 PM

Quote:

With the sole social exception being education.

????
Can't a person educate themselves?

No,reallyisall

WULFENSTAR

Friday, October 17, 2008 4:38 PM

(To Rue)

Bitch, please. Read what I write, not what you want to see.

Get them bifocals changed.

lol

RUE

Friday, October 17, 2008 5:14 PM

Wulfie ---

You already owe a tremendous debt to society. Everyone is helpless and dependent and two points in their life - at the beginning and at the end, and most people are helpless and dependent at some point in between. What makes us different from chimpanzees (who obviously love and care for their families) is that we have a social structure that allows us to support our very dependent individuals. In fact, extreme dependency is that hallmark of the human infant.

BUT, but ! ... you say - it wasn't society that raised me, it was my family. And that's true. Though let's imagine your family without the social benefits THEY had - no language, no reasoning, no technology, no tribe - imagine them just like you would be if you were stripped of all learning and support. They wouldn't have done such a good job, I'll bet, and you would be no better off than if you'd been raised by animals --- if indeed you would have survived.

You have no choice in the matter - you already owe your life to society. And not as a result of some individual choice, but to society in general. Wrap your mind around that, if you can.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, October 17, 2008 5:23 PM

I never said that society is NOT important.

In fact, what I AM saying is that a FREE society (bereft of forced inclusion, exclusion, or socialism) is of the utmost import.

"Though let's imagine your family without the social benefits THEY had - no language, no reasoning, no technology, no tribe - imagine them just like you would be if you were stripped of all learning and support. They wouldn't have done such a good job, I'll bet, and you would be no better off than if you'd been raised by animals --- if indeed you would have survived."

How did you get that from what I have been saying? Also, study a bit of anthropology before you lay the gift of reasoning at the feet of society.

RUE

Friday, October 17, 2008 5:34 PM

Wulfie -

"... a FREE society (bereft of forced inclusion, exclusion, or socialism) is of the utmost import."

You still don't get it. By virtue of being born into a society you are already included - you get all the benefits (and the problems) automatically. You simply don't have a choice.

"Also, study a bit of anthropology before you lay the gift of reasoning at the feet of society."

There are 'feral children' who never learn to speak or to walk or to do any of those things we think of as 'human'. If they 'reason' it is the same way an animal 'reasons'.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, October 17, 2008 5:46 PM

Rue, whats your point?

How does this have anything to do with getting rid of income tax?

A society that cannot take care of itself WITHOUT being forced to do so, is a doomed society. As well it should be.

RUE

Friday, October 17, 2008 5:53 PM

Income tax is a lot like product specifications, currency, agreed on physical standards, the side of the road you drive on and the meaning of stop signs - they are all socially mediated structures that allow the society you enjoy, and by which you benefit, to exist.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, October 17, 2008 6:00 PM

Wrong.

You can do ALL of that (roads, schools, signs etc) with a much more limited government and the tax on goods, which is already in place.

How great would it be if the next time the government wanted to go to war (without a Declaration of War), they had to ask the people for money to do so? (Not saying that we should let our military lag behind. Again, tho, this could be paid for without the income tax..)

Or, after whatever next bubble burst, they had to ASK the people to donate money to the bailout effort?

Or, if they wanted to build a bridge to nowhere?

RUE

Friday, October 17, 2008 6:11 PM

"You can do ALL of that (roads, schools, signs etc) with a much more limited government and the tax on goods, which is already in place."

You're proposing more of the same stuff that got us into this financial mess in the first place - in some ways you're worse than 'double down' McCain. He at least wants to just keep things the same.

The only people who benefit from a lack of income tax are businesses and the wealthy. And since Reagan dropped the tax rate on those making more than a few million down from 78% to 33% (or less, with tax shelters) the rich have only gotten more rich and more powerful to the point where they are now running the country for their personal financial benefit. And the middle class has shrunk and been put on the run chasing from one crisis to the next. And what you're proposing is an even more extreme version of 'tinkle on' economics.

How's that worked so far ?

***************************************************************

We'll lose a little with every transaction, but don't worry - we'll make up for it in volume.

AGENTROUKA

Friday, October 17, 2008 6:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
So. For the few, who thru no fault of their own, nor thru their own stupidity or greed, are without shelter, food, clothing, (and family and friends to help them), there would be charitable organizations for them.

Thank you for explaining.

Quote:

So, to be succinct, I am against income taxes. However, until Ron Paul is president, I have to pay said taxes. As such, I am against them being used in ANY social program.

With the sole social exception being education.

If you put it in the context of social programs, does this mean something other than basic kindergarten to graduation type of education?

WULFENSTAR

Friday, October 17, 2008 6:19 PM

Rue,
YOU would also benefit from a lack of income tax.

Simple math here....

You make 50,000. The government takes 12,000 in income taxes...

However, if there were no income taxes, you would KEEP that money. And hey, if you really believed in a charitable organization (or a few) you could give that money to them yourself.

Or, you could take that money and put a down payment on a house or a car.

Either way, it would be YOUR CHOICE.

Better life for everyone.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, October 17, 2008 6:21 PM

Agent,

I think that the ONLY Social Program that our taxes should pay would be for Public Ed thru High School.

After that, its up to you to get into college.

RUE

Friday, October 17, 2008 6:25 PM

Since you didn't actually address my points and I added some, here it is, again:

You're proposing more of the same stuff that got us into this financial mess in the first place - in some ways you're worse than 'double down' McCain. He at least wants to just keep things the same.

The only people who benefit from a lack of income tax are businesses and the wealthy. And since Reagan dropped the tax rate on those making more than a few million down from 78% to 33% (or less, with tax shelters) the rich have only gotten more rich and more powerful to the point where they are now running the country for their personal financial benefit. And the middle class has shrunk and been put on the run chasing from one crisis to the next. And what you're proposing is an even more extreme version of 'tinkle on' economics.

How's that worked so far ?

***************************************************************

BTW - an appeal to personal greed doesn't work on me.

CHRISISALL

Friday, October 17, 2008 6:26 PM

I also believe Income Tax is borderline-legal, and stupid to boot.
Tax on what you buy, period.
I buy a $20,000 car, $2,000 goes to Uncle Sam.
He buys a $30,000,000 yacht, $3,000,000 goes to Uncle Sam.
(No tax on food, or housing (1st residence only))
No loop holes.

isall

RUE

Friday, October 17, 2008 6:29 PM

I make $20,000 a year and spend ALL of it on necessities - and end up on the street due to taxes.

And - see above Chris, Is All. Do you really want MORE 'tinkle on' economics ? Do your really want the wealthy and powerful to be even MORE wealthy and powerful than they are now ?

How's that worked so far ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CHRISISALL

Friday, October 17, 2008 6:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

And - see above Chris, Is All. Do you really want MORE 'tinkle on' economics ? Do your really want the wealthy and powerful to be even MORE wealthy and powerful than they are now ?

Seems to me the richest few end up not only paying no taxes, but some make money on the deal.
Imagine the horror when told they HAD to pay the tax on their Ferrari or they couldn't buy it???

Please feel free to correct me if I'm being naieve here...

Chrisisall

WULFENSTAR

Friday, October 17, 2008 6:35 PM

Fine then, Rue, since all you want to do is punish the rich....

Make it simple.

If ther must be income tax...(and until the next revolution I guess there must be), make it a flat one.

1% across the board.

You make 100,000. That a 1,000 to the government.

You make 50,000. Thats 500 to the government.

You make 10 mill? Thats a million to the government.

Simple. Fair.

Done.

RUE

Friday, October 17, 2008 6:51 PM

I think the two of you are ignoring historical facts.

Ever since Reagan flattened the progressive income tax structure, government debt soared, the rich and powerful started running the country for their own economic benefit, more people became impoverished, and the gap between rich and poor is now as large as it was in 1929. And the economy has tanked.

And you two want those same polices - just boosted to an extreme. I have to keep asking you because neither of you has answered the question yet - HOW'S THAT WORKED SO FAR ?.

The only time the trends were reversed was when Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and raised the minimum wage, effectively narrowing the gap (however slightly) between the very rich and the rest of us. And what horrible things happened as a result ? The economy really did boom. And the government started to pay down its debt.

You may not like the facts, but they speak for themselves.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 17, 2008 6:55 PM

Hmm... Okay, Wulf, let's figure out how "no tax" would work...

Road construction and repair. Each state does its own? That kinda defeat the purpose of an interstate, and nearly everyone agrees (I think) that our transportation system is what makes us prosperous. Toll roads are just too impractical. (What do you do, pay a toll at the end of your driveway b4 your drive onto a city street? Pay another toll for county roads, and another for interstates?) However, each jurisdiction COULD create its own fuel tax. That way, the heaviest users pay the highest amount. Sound fair?

"The justice system" Police, judges, attorneys, jails- the whole shebangabang. To some extent I agree with Frem: the "beat cop" is almost never there when you need him (her) and jail time almost never reforms anyone. However, I still see a need for detectives, crime scene investigators, forensics experts, judges and attorneys, process servers, and bounty hunters. And those services have to be within the means of the everyday person otherwise its just "justice for the rich". Unlike raod use, I see no way to fund this on a fee-for-service basis.

Intra- and interstate pollution, safety, product etc regulation The person downstream, downwind, or later in time must be protected from those who are upstream upwind, or predecessors. I suppose a community COULD bring a lawuit against a company, or one state could sue another, but it would require (1) that people GET HURT first (2)an army of technical experts on both sides, and (3) the process would have to be repeated for each individual case. And then, how do you sue someone for what was done 20 years ago? Seems like a terrific waste of resources... guaranteed employment for trial lawyers everywhere... and ultimately it prevents the accumulation of knowledge.

National defense I think it sucks up way too much money, but I see no way to fund it, unless we want to go the barbarian route and have our soldiers pillage and loot.

Maybe the best way to go is to allow people to check on their tax return WHERE they want their dollars to go!

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, October 17, 2008 7:06 PM

So Sigy,

You believe that the txes we pay on the sale of goods/services would NOT be enough to take care of these things?

Please back that up with figures on how much money is generated by sales tax on a National level.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 17, 2008 7:07 PM

Quote:
Fine then, Rue, since all you want to do is punish the rich....

Punish the rich??? You have got to be f*cking sh*ttin' me, man! Do you have ANY idea how many tax breaks corporations get, compared to us peeps??? Do you have ANY idea how many breaks the wealthy get, compared to us regular folks???? And that's not even effing counting the fact that our sons and daughters spill their blood for ExxonMobil, or Kennecot Copper, or United Fruit!

ETA: Sales taxes are REGRESSIVE. They tax the poor (who spend a higher percentage of their income) more than they tax the rich. Sales tax= bad idea. It punishes the poor.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

RUE

Friday, October 17, 2008 7:19 PM

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for an answer to a simple question - HOW'S THAT* WORKED SO FAR ?

***************************************************************
*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

In the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, the top rate was 75%. The top rate reached 94% during the war and remained at 91% until 1964.

In 1964 the top rate was decreased to 70% (1964 Revenue Act) -

In 1981 the top rate was decreased to 50% in (Economic Recovery Tax Act or ERTA) (Ronald Reagan 1981–1989)

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced the top rate to 28%, at the same time raising the bottom rate from 11% to 15% (in fact 15% and 28% became the only two tax brackets). (Ronald Reagan 1981–1989)

During the 1990s the top rate rose again, standing at 39.6% by the end of the decade. (Bill Clinton 1993 to 2001)

The top rate was cut to 35% and the bottom rate was cut to 10% by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA). (George W Bush 2001 2009)

And the inheritance tax was repealed.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, October 17, 2008 7:29 PM

Rue...

Again, what EXACTLY is wrong with not paying income tax?

The current crisis is due by and large to greed. Greed by banks and more greed by corporations. (Not to metnion stupidity and greed by people. "I work at McDonalds, i can't speak English, but I can afford a 500,000 doallr home!")

Curtail corporation and banks, get rid of income taxes, and BAM!.

Prosperity.

Also, our national debt is so high because we keep propping up foreign states/governments/ etc..(Israel, Im looking at you)

RUE

Friday, October 17, 2008 7:31 PM

You still haven't answered my question.

For the fourth time - how's that worked so far ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, October 17, 2008 7:36 PM

Hows what worked so far?

Lowering taxes? Its still theft from my paycheck. So it hasnt worked well so far.

The problem Rue, is that you WANT big government.

I DO NOT.

RUE

Friday, October 17, 2008 7:41 PM

Actually, I was talking about YOUR proposal, which is flattening the taxes.

For the fifth time - HOW'S THAT WORKED SO FAR ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Friday, October 17, 2008 7:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by deadlockvictim:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
...only true thing that he said about himself was his name.

ah, actually it's Sam

Ah...actually, it's Samuel JOSEPH Wurzelbacher. JOE is what he goes by.

We can use HIS middle name, just not the Dem Presidential candidate's.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Friday, October 17, 2008 8:19 PM

This is what "Joe the plumber" said:
“I’m getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year,” he told Mr. Obama. “Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?”

Thomas Joseph, the business manager of Local 50 of the United Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters and Service Mechanics, based in Toledo, said Thursday that Mr. Wurzelbacher had never held a plumber’s license, which is required in Toledo and several surrounding municipalities. He also never completed an apprenticeship and does not belong to the plumber’s union, which has endorsed Mr. Obama. On Thursday, he acknowledged that he does plumbing work even though he does not have a license.

Contrary to what Mr. Wurzelbacher asserted and Mr. McCain echoed, neither his personal taxes nor those of the business where he works are likely to rise if Mr. Obama’s tax plan were to go into effect, they said.

So he's not really a plumber, he's not getting ready to buy a business, and his taxes aren't going up. About the only thing true is that one of is names (though not his first one) is 'Joe'.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

ERIC

Friday, October 17, 2008 8:24 PM

Forget the fake plumber, the ultimate Joe Sixpack, Al Bundy, endorses Obama:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcb_election2008/20081017/wl_mcb_election2008/
albundystumpsforobama;_ylt=Avx6FiBj36AC57PO7.blHA6M5QcF

KIRKULES

Friday, October 17, 2008 8:34 PM

It's obvious that none of you have ever worked in the construction field. In some States where the unions/mob control the trades it is necessary to be licensed. Most states however only require the work be overseen by a licenced worker. Many companies only have one or two licensed workers and 10-50 unlicensed workers doing the actual work. You can be a carpenter, electrician, surveyor, HVAC technician, steel worker, and even a plumber your entire career and never be licensed. I'd be willing to bet that only one out of a hundred plumbers in the US are licensed.

AURAPTOR

Friday, October 17, 2008 8:48 PM

Well rue, Joe is a plumber, just not a member of the union. BFD. Even if 'Joe' is really an ablino militant lesbian on food stamps, the real story is what Obama said, and his desire to " srpead the wealth around " crap.

Where's THAT listed in the Constitution?

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Friday, October 17, 2008 8:50 PM

But was Al Bundy LICENSED to sell shoes?

How ever did Ed O'Neill find the time to slip away from his busy acting schedule to help out Obama ?

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Friday, October 17, 2008 9:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
It's obvious that none of you have ever worked in the construction field. ... Most states however only require the work be overseen by a licenced worker.

It's obvious you didn't read the quote:

... a plumber’s license ... is required in Toledo and several surrounding municipalities...

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 17, 2008 9:09 PM

Oh, those poor rich people. Boo hoo hoo! I feel so sorry for them!

Meanwhile, McCain is plannning to increase my taxes (Yeah, he REALLY IS. Unlike Obama.) and give my $$ to the rich!

Thanks, but no f*ckin' thanks.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

RUE

Friday, October 17, 2008 9:10 PM

"srpead the wealth around " crap.
Where's THAT listed in the Constitution?"

"Promote the general welfare ..."

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KIRKULES

Friday, October 17, 2008 9:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
It's obvious that none of you have ever worked in the construction field. ... Most states however only require the work be overseen by a licenced worker.

It's obvious you didn't read the quote:

... a plumber’s license ... is required in Toledo and several surrounding municipalities...

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

He works for a licensed plumber therefore he doesn't need to be licensed even in Toledo Ohio. He only needs a licence if he has people working under him.

RUE

Friday, October 17, 2008 9:31 PM

The city of Toledo is preparing a letter to his employer seeking to determine whether he is violating city codes, and the plumber’s union is on his tail.

Joe Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber, the nickname Republican John McCain bestowed on him during Wednesday's presidential debate, said he works for a small plumbing company that does residential work. Because he works for someone else, he doesn't need a license, he said.
But the county Wurzelbacher and his employer live in, Lucas County, requires plumbers to have licenses. Neither Wurzelbacher nor his employer are licensed there, said Cheryl Schimming of Lucas County Building Regulations, which handles plumber licenses in parts of the county outside Toledo.
Wurzelbacher, 34, said he doesn't have a good plan put together on how he would buy Newell Plumbing and Heating in nearby Toledo.

Hey, the guy's a tax cheat, a fraud, and a lying sack of crap. Why are you defending him ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CHRISISALL

Friday, October 17, 2008 9:46 PM

Then a luxury tax?
Say 6% sales tax on regular stuff, and 25% on luxury.
Ex: 26" TV, 6%; 72", 25%

?isall

AURAPTOR

Friday, October 17, 2008 10:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, those poor rich people. Boo hoo hoo! I feel so sorry for them!

Meanwhile, McCain is plannning to increase my taxes (Yeah, he REALLY IS. Unlike Obama.) and give my $$ to the rich!

Thanks, but no f*ckin' thanks.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

No, he's not.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Friday, October 17, 2008 10:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"srpead the wealth around " crap.
Where's THAT listed in the Constitution?"

"Promote the general welfare ..."

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Perhaps THE dumbest thing ever posted ever on RWED.... you sure you don't want to take this one back ?

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Friday, October 17, 2008 10:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Hey, the guy's a tax cheat, a fraud, and a lying sack of crap. Why are you defending him ?

A tax cheat ? Hell, 1,200 bucks isn't exatcly CHEATING anyone. Big time tax cheats lnclude the likes of Charles Rangel

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday privately pushed Rep. Charlie Rangel to give up his chairmanship of the influential House tax-rules committee amid explosive revelations that his personal tax filings were riddled with errors and omissions, a wellplaced source said.

Rangel, the Democratic chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, has been resisting growing calls to step down from the high-profile leadership role since The Post reported the Harlem congressman failed to disclose rental income from his Dominican Republic beach home.

Rangel subsequently admitted owing at least $10,000 in back taxes .

And Joe isn't, as the left ALWAYS tries to paint anyone who doesn't fall lock step in w/ their cult, a " liar ". Joe hasn't lied about one god damn thing, and the Left KNOWS this, but all they care about is destroying the average Joe.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, October 17, 2008 10:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Hey, the guy's a tax cheat, a fraud, and a lying sack of crap. Why are you defending him ?

A tax CHEAT?

Supposing that he actually OWES any tax , that mans that by YOUR definition , EVERYONE that a government deems to be owing a tax ,
is a cheat...

Hey , spend your guilt somewhere else...No one's buying that crap in here...

The guy has an honest job , doing honest work with his own hands...That's not INCOME , it's WAGES...Most Innumerates don't know that ,
and don't GET the distinction...

He's TRADING his finite resources , Time , Skills , and Labor , for another form of 'resource' , a type of COMPENSATION...

It's a swap or barter , involving NO GAIN...

NO GAIN means NO INCOME...He's liable for NO INCOME TAX...

As for being a fraud and a lying sack of crap , well , notice no one is defending you , either...

Except maybe SignyM , and sooner or later , she may learn to do better...

SIGNYM

Friday, October 17, 2008 10:27 PM

Quote:
No, he's not.

Yes, he is. He's going to tax my health insurance benefits. And it's going to wind up costing me TAX money when all is said and done. Not including the fact that if my employer choses to bail out of that benefit, it will cost me an ADDITIONAL $6000 per year to buy family coverage, assuming my family members will even qualify.

Hey, I do my own taxes and every 10 years I compare them to a profe$$ional service to make sure I'm keeping up with the tax code. I do OK. I'm not a doofus when it comes to taxes.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 17, 2008 10:30 PM

Quote:
NO GAIN means NO INCOME...He's liable for NO INCOME TAX...

That and $0.90 will get you a cuppa coffee. Your wild-eyed anti-taxism doesn't hack it in the real world.

ETA: Rue, you're talking to deep-enders here.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, October 17, 2008 10:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"spread the wealth around " crap.
Where's THAT listed in the Constitution?"

"Promote the general welfare ..."

Perhaps THE dumbest thing ever posted ever on RWED.... you sure you don't want to take this one back ?

There's no way he'll take it back...

Besides being atrociously stupid , his other sin is Pride...

He's not the sort to figure out that is but part of a " Mission Statement " contained within the Preamble...

" Promote the General Welfare " isn't the same as " Promoting Everyone's Generally Being ON WELFARE " , from the poorest up through the 'Corporate' Fatcats...

Finer points like that always escape the ruefully retarded nanny-state suckers of the 'central teat'...

AURAPTOR

Friday, October 17, 2008 10:39 PM

It's sad to see those who claim to be Browncoats cling so blindly to the Alliance-is-Daddy attitude when it comes to the United States Government.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Friday, October 17, 2008 10:40 PM

Rap

WHY should I listen to you about taxes ?

Aren't you the one who claimed that since I'm not a tax accountant I'm not qualified to say anything about Palin owing taxes on per diems (though I quoted a tax expert) - and then proceeded to tell me (in your non- expert opinion of course) that she didn't owe any taxes on those ? Aren't you the one who claimed 95% of Americans don't pay any income tax ?

Refresh my memory again - tell me what expertise you have and how good your judgment is when it comes to taxes.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Friday, October 17, 2008 10:43 PM

"It's sad to see those who claim to be Browncoats cling so blindly to the Alliance-is-Daddy attitude when it comes to the United States Government."

Yes especially when it comes to government lying its way into a war, spying on its own innocent citizens, and torturing people ... all in the name of saving us from all those evil brown people.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Friday, October 17, 2008 10:45 PM

OTB

Wages are taxable. Even non-monetary compensation is taxable. Look it up.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, October 17, 2008 10:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Hey, I do my own taxes and every 10 years I compare them to a profe$$ional service to make sure I'm keeping up with the tax code. I do OK. I'm not a doofus when it comes to taxes.

You ARE a DOOFUS...

" Wild-eyed anti-TAXISM " is what gave this glorious idea (USA) its start...

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/teaparty.htm

Pleased to see that you count me among the heroes of the Revolution...

That puts me in some very august company...

You do me Honor , with your Honor , 'specially when you Do Me , so honorably...

Deeply Ironical , when just a couple days ago , you were dressing down folk in one thread for their economic ignorance , and meanwhile ,
you were Flashing your own , in another thread...

Recall , that you didn't know the difference between DEFICIT , and DEBT ?

You're just the sort Uncle Sucker is looking for , both stupid AND compliant...

For your homework assignment , check to see in what manner the 16th Amendment was ratified by a majority of the States...

'Cause that what is required to establish an Amendment to the Constitution...

http://www.libertyforlife.com/constitution/us-16th-failed-ratification
.htm

http://political-resources.com/taxes/16thamendment/default.htm

RUE

Friday, October 17, 2008 10:48 PM

OTB

I believe it was 'no taxation without representation'. Even the Revolutionaries had an income tax to pay for the Revolution.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, October 17, 2008 10:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
OTB

I believe it was 'no taxation without representation'. Even the Revolutionaries had an income tax to pay for the Revolution.

Once again your belief doesn't exactly square with the facts...

Reference Article 1 , Section 9 :

" No Capitation , or other DIRECT TAX , shall
be laid , unless in Proportion to the CENSUS or ENUMERATION hereinbefore directed to be taken..."

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, October 17, 2008 10:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
OTB

Wages are taxable. Even non-monetary compensation is taxable. Look it up.

What you're attempting to reference would be Title 26...

Never enacted into law...

YOU can look it up , Later...

AURAPTOR

Friday, October 17, 2008 10:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Rap

WHY should I listen to you about taxes ?

Aren't you the one who claimed that since I'm not a tax accountant I'm not qualified to say anything about Palin owing taxes on per diems (though I quoted a tax expert) - and then proceeded to tell me (in your non- expert opinion of course) that she didn't owe any taxes on those ? Aren't you the one who claimed 95% of Americans don't pay any income tax ?

Refresh my memory again - tell me what expertise you have and how good your judgment is when it comes to taxes.

I don't give a damn that you'll pay more in taxes under Obama. Good for you. My 95% remark was clearly false, as I've stated. As is Obama's claim to CUT income taxes on 95% of tax payers. I've admitted MY error, Obama keeps on making the same mistake on his claim. Palin's per diem, as I heard said , isn't taxable under Alaska state law. The details of each state's particular tax law are different, as are the exemptions. It's beyond a trivial matter, by any account, and yet the Left tries to blow up the issue. Meanwhile, the Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee , Charles Rangel ( D - Harlem ) has dodged reporting rental income ( Over $75,000 ) on his Dominican Republic beach front property.

Spare me your phoney righteous indignation over Gov. Palin and her alleged per diem tax issue.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Friday, October 17, 2008 11:02 PM

"As is Obama's claim to CUT income taxes on 95% of tax payers. Obama keeps on making the same mistake on his claim."

See, and there you are, wrong again. Obama said he would not increase taxes for 95% of people. Can't you get anything right ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KWICKO

Friday, October 17, 2008 11:02 PM

Quote:
Hey, the guy's a tax cheat, a fraud, and a lying sack of crap. Why are you defending him ?

Because he's a typical Republican?

Mike

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

Trolls Against McCain!

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, October 17, 2008 11:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
OTB

I believe it was 'no taxation without representation'. Even the Revolutionaries had an income tax to pay for the Revolution.

There's an oddity...Revolutionaries imposing an Income Tax upon themselves ?

CITES , Please !

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, October 17, 2008 11:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Hey, the guy's a tax cheat, a fraud, and a lying sack of crap. Why are you defending him ?

Because he's a typical Republican?

Partisan potshots , Mikey ?

I trust that you have the intellect to do better than that...

KWICKO

Friday, October 17, 2008 11:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Hey, the guy's a tax cheat, a fraud, and a lying sack of crap. Why are you defending him ?

Because he's a typical Republican?

Partisan potshots , Mikey ?

I trust that you have the intellect to do better than that...

Oh, it was just too easy a shot not to take...

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, October 17, 2008 11:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Oh, it was just too easy a shot not to take...

Folk forget that Joe The Plumber ain't running
for President...

Oddly hypocritical that there is such a furious attack against HIS 'credentials' , but OprahBamaHussein can't prove himself to be native-born ?

Just a diversion...

RUE

Friday, October 17, 2008 11:29 PM

He can, and has. Get a life.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, October 17, 2008 11:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
It's sad to see those who claim to be Browncoats cling so blindly to the Alliance-is-Daddy attitude when it comes to the United States Government.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Seconded...

Their parents must have somehow abused them as children...It's a form of 'Stockholm Syndrome'...

They do have some pity from me...Hopefully , they'll get some mental support and outgrow their problem...

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, October 17, 2008 11:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
He can, and has. Get a life.

He can't , and didn't...

He won't , because he can't...

Get a legitimate President , and get busy doing your tax-law homework , 'sonny' !

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, October 17, 2008 11:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
OTB

I believe it was 'no taxation without representation'. Even the Revolutionaries had an income tax to pay for the Revolution.

Here's where the notion of " Taxation without Representation " originated :

'...For over a generation, New Englanders had been accustomed to importing the larger part of the molasses for their rum distilleries from the French and Dutch West Indies without paying a duty. They now contended that payment of even the small duty imposed would be ruinous.

As it happened, the preamble to the Sugar Act gave the colonists an opportunity to rationalize their discontent on constitutional grounds. The power of Parliament to tax colonial commodities for the regulation of trade had long been accepted in theory though not always in practice, but the power to tax "for improving the revenue of this Kingdom," as stated in the Revenue Act of 1764, was new and hence debatable.

The constitutional issue became an entering wedge in the great dispute that was finally to wrest the American colonies from England. "One single act of Parliament," wrote James Otis, fiery orator from Massachusetts, "has set more people a-thinking in six months, more than they had done in their whole lives before." Merchants, legislatures, and town meetings protested against the expediency of the law, and colonial lawyers like Samuel Adams found in the preamble the first intimation of "taxation without representation," the catchword that was to draw many to the cause of the American patriots against the mother country. '

Still looking for YOUR Cites , Rue !

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 18, 2008 12:17 AM

Quote:
As is Obama's claim to CUT income taxes on 95% of tax payers

How is that "false"? It's a statement of intent, not of fact. You can say it's impractical, possibly, but calling it false is just.... well... false.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

RUE

Saturday, October 18, 2008 12:19 AM

"Hopefully , they'll get some mental support and outgrow their problem..."

As soon as you stop excusing spying, torture, corruption, the unitary executive and other Bush administration illegal activities.

I'll be waiting for that.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Saturday, October 18, 2008 12:24 AM

"The phrase "No Taxation Without Representation!" was coined by Reverend Jonathan Mayhew in a sermon in Boston in 1750. ...

Parliament had controlled colonial trade and taxed imports and exports since 1660.[2] By the 1760s the Americans came to believe they were being deprived of a historic right.[3] The English Bill of Rights 1689 had forbidden the imposition of taxes without the consent of Parliament. Since the colonists had no representation in Parliament they complained the taxes violated the guaranteed Rights of Englishmen.

The complaint was never officially over the amount of taxation (the taxes were quite low, though ubiquitous), but always on the political decision-making process by which taxes were decided in London, i.e. without representation for the colonists in British Parliament."

So you agree with me, the colonists weren't opposed to taxation per se, they were opposed to taxation without representation.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 18, 2008 12:36 AM

Quote:
No Capitation , or other DIRECT TAX , shall be laid , unless in Proportion to the CENSUS or ENUMERATION hereinbefore directed to be taken

Maybe that's why they do a census every ten years.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 18, 2008 12:42 AM

GEORGE WASHINGTON on TAXES:

Quote:
As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 18, 2008 12:44 AM

THOMAS JEFFERSON on TAXES

Quote:
Many of the opposition {to the new Federal Constitution} wish to take from Congress the power of internal taxation. Calculation has convinced me that this would be very mischievous. --Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1788.

"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784.

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff5.htm

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

OUT2THEBLACK

Saturday, October 18, 2008 12:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Hopefully , they'll get some mental support and outgrow their problem..."

As soon as you stop excusing spying, torture, corruption, the unitary executive and other Bush administration illegal activities.

I'll be waiting for that.

That's what I mean about you slandering me , Ricardo...

I've never excused any of those things for Bush , or for anyone else...

Nor would I...

This is how folk recognize you for the loser that you are...And , how They Know that You Know that you're beaten...

Lies , on top of slanderous Lies...

If you can show evidence of my condoning anything from your list of nasty , stand and deliver...I've NEVER SAID anything of the KIND...

This is gonna be a long wait for a train don't come...

Better get started...

Otherwise , S-T-F-U...

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE