People Who Piss Me Off: Libertarians

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Paychecks aren't a government program. Tax exempt health care insurance benefits, home mortgage interest deduction, dependent care credits, EITC and the like is what I'm referring to. Those are government programs providing direct financial benefits. So, care to take a guess now?

The difference here is, if the government didn't take your money in the first place, then you wouldn't have to figure out ways to get it back from them.

All of those programs should be non-existant. If you're income is too low for you to get money back from certain programs, then the government shouldn't collect that money to begin with.

The whole idea of "tax refunds" every year is absurd...

"Oh look, we're the government and we're broke, and we have all this money we take in, but we give most of it back..."

Yeah, makes a whole lot of sense.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Paychecks aren't a government program. Tax exempt health care insurance benefits, home mortgage interest deduction, dependent care credits, EITC and the like is what I'm referring to. Those are government programs providing direct financial benefits. So, care to take a guess now?

What trash

You assume the money belongs to the government and you get to "Keep more" if you do these things that the government wants you to do and then that is a benefit.

Fine, how about we get ME off the government "dole"? eliminate income tax, eliminate all the deductions and credits. Implement the fair tax. How's that? Of course they forget how tax incentives and penalties work when it comes to illegal aliens being exploited by employers for profit.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Gary and Alla

[Danno 1,228]

Paychecks aren't a government program. Tax exempt health care insurance benefits, home mortgage interest deduction, dependent care credits, EITC and the like is what I'm referring to. Those are government programs providing direct financial benefits. So, care to take a guess now?

We hear these "1 in 4" people or 2 in 4 people it really depends on what is being considered a program.

This much I can tell you, it is growing every year. Doesn't matter who is in the white house or in the Capital.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The difference here is, if the government didn't take your money in the first place, then you wouldn't have to figure out ways to get it back from them.

All of those programs should be non-existant. If you're income is too low for you to get money back from certain programs, then the government shouldn't collect that money to begin with.

The whole idea of "tax refunds" every year is absurd...

"Oh look, we're the government and we're broke, and we have all this money we take in, but we give most of it back..."

Yeah, makes a whole lot of sense.

EITC is redistribution of funds. Confiscating funds from one person and giving it to another person, period. It is welfare.

The others need not exist at all. Do away with tax on income.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We hear these "1 in 4" people or 2 in 4 people it really depends on what is being considered a program.

Try 96 out of 100.

[james&olya 1,121]

So in other words and policy of legalizing of drugs will have to wait until Canada and Mexico is on board because as you noted, the effects of the neighboring areas will

ruine the progress we would otherwise make.

At least in theory our borders are not 'open'!

[james&olya 1,121]

Paychecks aren't a government program. Tax exempt health care insurance benefits, home mortgage interest deduction, dependent care credits, EITC and the like is what I'm referring to. Those are government programs providing direct financial benefits. So, care to take a guess now?

A much bigger part of our deficit spending has to do with government programs, subsidies, tax breaks, etc to benefit the largest and wealthiest corporate interests and even individual tax-payers out there! They have been quite successful in distracting the attention of the middle class away from their huge perks and instead getting the focus on to the much smaller government expenditures on the safety net for the poor! Romney is the poster boy for these well-heeled interests!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

A much bigger part of our deficit spending has to do with government programs, subsidies, tax breaks, etc to benefit the largest and wealthiest corporate interests and even individual tax-payers out there! They have been quite successful in distracting the attention of the middle class away from their huge perks and instead getting the focus on to the much smaller government expenditures on the safety net for the poor! Romney is the poster boy for these well-heeled interests!

That's the other truth out there - that government programs structured as tax breaks are highly regressive. I've read that eliminating the currently more than $1 trillion of government programs structured as tax expenditures (yes, trillion with a "t" and that is the annual cost of these government programs) would result in an average $930.00 or so in additional tax liability for the bottom 20% and an average $280,000.00 in additional tax liability for the top 1%.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

That's the other truth out there - that government programs structured as tax breaks are highly regressive. I've read that eliminating the currently more than $1 trillion of government programs structured as tax expenditures (yes, trillion with a "t" and that is the annual cost of these government programs) would result in an average $930.00 or so in additional tax liability for the bottom 20% and an average $280,000.00 in additional tax liability for the top 1%.

The fair tax would eliminate all this nonsense. Which is exactly WHY they will not implement it.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

A much bigger part of our deficit spending has to do with government programs, subsidies, tax breaks, etc to benefit the largest and wealthiest corporate interests and even individual tax-payers out there! They have been quite successful in distracting the attention of the middle class away from their huge perks and instead getting the focus on to the much smaller government expenditures on the safety net for the poor! Romney is the poster boy for these well-heeled interests!

You are right about Romney which is why it makes no difference to vote for him. But Obama is the same. They are all the same. Shouldn't Henry Waxman be having hearings on windfall profits for oil companies right about now? He did when Bush was President and the oil price was the same. Shouldn't Obama be pushing a windfall profits tax on oil companies to be used for heating assistance as he did when he was a Senator in 2007? But Obama extended the "Bush tax cuts for the rich", cut funding for Social Security and cut corporate income tax from 35% to 28%...all about the same time he started accepting donations from Super PACs.

This is because our tax system is not about funding the government. It is about swinging political power. The politicians tell the poor people they will "tax the rich" and then write in all sorts of loopholes to exempt the rich and corporations who pour money into their coffers, even Obama is now accepting cash from the "Super PACs"

The system of taxing income is flawed, too easy to manipulate, particularly when there is such a complex code which is necessarily complex due to the attempt to "tax the rich" while at the same time giving them tax shelters, credits and deductions.

The Fair Tax eliminates income tax of all forms, eliminates any way to manipulate the system and eliminates politicians from the business of funding the government.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The fair tax would eliminate all this nonsense. Which is exactly WHY they will not implement it.

A straightforward income tax would eliminate that nonsense. The so-called FAIR tax is regressive. Implementing it would replace the nonsense we have with the nonsense you keep calling 'fair' but which in reality is nothing but a mislabeled consumption tax.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

A straightforward income tax would eliminate that nonsense. The so-called FAIR tax is regressive. Implementing it would replace the nonsense we have with the nonsense you keep calling 'fair' but which in reality is nothing but a mislabeled consumption tax.

Typical democrat. Wants to protect the funding system for the party and the agenda. Wants to be able to say "You will get it free and we will tax the rich"

Please give details of your statements. How is it regressive, precisely? There is nothing mislabled about it, it IS a consumption tax. It is FAIR because it is the same for everyone including a rebate on the tax for basic necessities and an exemption for resale goods.

Please cite the portions of the proposed fair tax legislation and your objection to them. Otherwise you are just bandying words about.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Typical democrat. Wants to protect the funding system for the party and the agenda. Wants to be able to say "You will get it free and we will tax the rich"

Please give details of your statements. How is it regressive, precisely? There is nothing mislabled about it, it IS a consumption tax. It is FAIR because it is the same for everyone including a rebate on the tax for basic necessities and an exemption for resale goods.

Please cite the portions of the proposed fair tax legislation and your objection to them. Otherwise you are just bandying words about.

Once you have consumed the concept of regressive taxation, please let me know. Then we can discuss how and why the falsely "fair" labeled 'fair tax' is regressive. Until then, I'd be spending my time more effectively arguing with a wall.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Once you have consumed the concept of regressive taxation, please let me know. Then we can discuss how and why the falsely "fair" labeled 'fair tax' is regressive. Until then, I'd be spending my time more effectively arguing with a wall.

http://www.investorwords.com/4138/regressive_tax.html

Fair Tax is not regressive by ANY definition. If you can argue a point without making up stuff or just throwing around words which you have no clue of the meaning of...please do so.

Please do not insult my intelligence or yours with such nonsense. So easy it is to say "regressive" without knowing what it means and all the little parrots say "regressive, regressive" Polly want a cracker?

If you care to discuss the Fair Tax I will glady do so. If all you can say is "its regressive" then lets talk about something else you may have knowledge of.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Nothing worth watching here, this video is just a bunch of generalizing in order to get a thumbs up from the usual narrow minded lefties that think republicans/libertarians are nothing but dumb and greedy.

Edited March 14, 2012 by _Simpson_