It's an honest way to deprive you of your money.
It's an honest way to deprive you of your money.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Ben Franklin said there will always be taxes, and he is on the $100 bill, so pay it or get the hell out.
"It would be thought a hard government that should tax its people one tenth part."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Taxes were less than 5% in his time.
"“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will be the end of the republic.”"
-- Benjamin Franklin
Bad Wigins wrote:
Dammit, anyone who doesn't like America's taxes can go find a country like Saudi Arabia where all they have is a 10% tithe for everyone.
Ben Franklin said there will always be taxes, and he is on the $100 bill, so pay it or get the hell out.
Hopefully you're just trolling.
Any thinking person I know that questions current taxes & rates isn't saying there shouldn't be any taxes. Just reasonable taxes.
There is a huge difference between what the taxes were during Ben Franklin's time and now. I doubt Franklin would be happy with the current tax situation in America.
The permanent federal income tax was not established until 1913.
The Social Security tax was not until the 1930s.
The Medicare tax were not established until the 1960s.
And, each of these taxes started at a very small percentage level and grew enormously over time. (Federal income tax started at 2% for income over $4000. FICA/Medicare started at 2-3%)
Notice a trend?
Considering that where I live that pays for schools, fire protection, ambulance service, the sheriff's office, snow plowing, road maintenance, and a host of other important services that help maintain the value and utility of my property, I'd say it's well worth while.
Most liberals want taxes not for the sake of funding public works, but for the sake of taking other peoples' money away to satisfy their envious bloodlust.
ryan foreman wrote:
Actually I think that is the only tax the founding fathers believed in having. Income taxes on the first $100,000K of your hard earned income is the scam.
What about on your easily earned income?
Do you realize too that the US has the most aggressive stance towards people that do not pay their property taxes. They will take your property in a heartbeat. In Europe and Canada, there is some leniency towards people that are having a difficult time paying their taxes. Also, if you inherit a nice piece of land or house and cannot pay the taxes on the property, then it will be taken from you. This assures that poor people do not own anything of value and only the rich can afford these things. Living in the "Land of the Free" is an absolute joke once you spend the time to realize what is going on around you.
Might as well put your money in a tow behind RV and park it in the national forest or on BLM land. At the end of the day you have to decide two things: if your are going to live under the tyranny of the government or find ways to stick it the man any chance you get. The second option doesn't always sound comfortable and its likely not to have any affect on the situation, but you get live with a little dignity.
marijuologist wrote:
Most liberals want taxes not for the sake of funding public works, but for the sake of taking other peoples' money away to satisfy their envious bloodlust.
You forgot to use the word, 'libtard'. As a result, it is impossible to take your post seriously.
ij wrote:
Considering that where I live that pays for schools, fire protection, ambulance service, the sheriff's office, snow plowing, road maintenance, and a host of other important services that help maintain the value and utility of my property, I'd say it's well worth while.
I don't disagree. I just wish that there was an exemption for the elderly. People who have lived most of their lives in a home shouldn't face the prospect of needing to move to avoid property taxes. If you've been in the same home for 10+ years, are over the age of 65, and it is your primary residence, you should be exempt from property tax. I'd be fine paying more now to help people in those situations.
vfdb wrote:
ij wrote:Considering that where I live that pays for schools, fire protection, ambulance service, the sheriff's office, snow plowing, road maintenance, and a host of other important services that help maintain the value and utility of my property, I'd say it's well worth while.
I don't disagree. I just wish that there was an exemption for the elderly. People who have lived most of their lives in a home shouldn't face the prospect of needing to move to avoid property taxes. If you've been in the same home for 10+ years, are over the age of 65, and it is your primary residence, you should be exempt from property tax. I'd be fine paying more now to help people in those situations.
Maybe. Maybe not. Seems like classic liberal thinking. Insulate people from the consequences of their bad decisions.
If you can't afford to live someplace, do not choose to live there. If you can't think ahead that there will be property taxes even after you retire don't expect the government to bail you out.
Well I Dunno wrote:
vfdb wrote:I don't disagree. I just wish that there was an exemption for the elderly. People who have lived most of their lives in a home shouldn't face the prospect of needing to move to avoid property taxes. If you've been in the same home for 10+ years, are over the age of 65, and it is your primary residence, you should be exempt from property tax. I'd be fine paying more now to help people in those situations.
Maybe. Maybe not. Seems like classic liberal thinking. Insulate people from the consequences of their bad decisions.
If you can't afford to live someplace, do not choose to live there. If you can't think ahead that there will be property taxes even after you retire don't expect the government to bail you out.
A tax cut is liberal thinking now?
This isn't about "protecting people from the consequences of their bad decisions". It's about letting people actually OWN their home, which likely has its mortgage paid off, after a lifetime of paying taxes.
Most conservatives only want government expenses that assist them and only them.
One conservative may want funding for the school their child walks to and only that and no funding for buses that he doesn't use.
One conservative may not have kids and doesn't want to spend on schools but wants money for the road leading to his church but for the road that leads to the local barbershop that he doesn't go to shouldn't get funding.
Taxes should not go to disabled people ... unless they become disabled.
Because each one of them only wants funding for things that directly help them, their expectations are that taxes should be much lower than they are.
They are utterly selfish.
vfdb wrote:
Well I Dunno wrote:Maybe. Maybe not. Seems like classic liberal thinking. Insulate people from the consequences of their bad decisions.
If you can't afford to live someplace, do not choose to live there. If you can't think ahead that there will be property taxes even after you retire don't expect the government to bail you out.
A tax cut is liberal thinking now?
This isn't about "protecting people from the consequences of their bad decisions". It's about letting people actually OWN their home, which likely has its mortgage paid off, after a lifetime of paying taxes.
Perhaps I was being too subtle for your inherent intellectual capacity. So here it is a bit more directly. Insulating people from the consequences of their bad decisions is a charge that is often made in connection with liberal social policies.
And yes, this is about protecting people from the consequences of their own bad decisions. Deciding to live in a given area without taking into account the lifetime financial consequences is a bad decision.
If an elderly person/couple is living in a home they have paid off and have financial issues paying their property taxes, they can just get a reverse mortgage to pay those taxes and stay there.
They don't have to move.
[/quote]Well I Dunno wrote:
vfdb wrote:A tax cut is liberal thinking now?
This isn't about "protecting people from the consequences of their bad decisions". It's about letting people actually OWN their home, which likely has its mortgage paid off, after a lifetime of paying taxes.
Perhaps I was being too subtle for your inherent intellectual capacity. So here it is a bit more directly. Insulating people from the consequences of their bad decisions is a charge that is often made in connection with liberal social policies.
And yes, this is about protecting people from the consequences of their own bad decisions. Deciding to live in a given area without taking into account the lifetime financial consequences is a bad decision.
an "entitlement" can considered a "tax-cut" just by a different name if you think about it. the effect (flow of funds) is the same.
'Dunno' is right here. As the state takes on more and more responsibility it enables more and more people to assume less and less responsibility. If the state is going to help raise your child (healthcare,education,subsidized housing,food-stamps,school-provided food,earned-income credit,"obama cellphones",federal student loans), where is the natural, reasonable economic constraint on having children?
Breaking away from a natural economic equilibrium such as "I can only reasonably afford X children on an income of Y" will have disastrous, long-term, unforeseen consequences.
Rampant liberalism continues to tear apart the middle class of America but for some reason they keep voting for more.
vfdb wrote:
A tax cut is liberal thinking now?
Wow, that's a cool trick. I figured that letting 1/4-1/3 of the home owners out of their property taxes, would increase taxes for others.
But you are now saying that it's just a tax cut.
Yeah, I'm sure you're right. That can't possibly be liberal thinking...
Tax cuts for EVERYBODY! Woo-hoo!
J.R. wrote:
"It would be thought a hard government that should tax its people one tenth part."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Taxes were less than 5% in his time.
1) a false generalization
2) in his time there was no standing army, electric grid or airports, limited water, sewage networks or public transportation, and no telephone lines. Paved roads were few and often made of rough cobblestones. People could do without these things because they were mostly self-sufficient farmers.
If you don't like paying 10% taxes, go start a farm in a third world country where they will only take 5% of your chickens.
sadfsdf wrote:
Also, if you inherit a nice piece of land or house and cannot pay the taxes on the property, then it will be taken from you. This assures that poor people do not own anything of value and only the rich can afford these things.
You don't pay inheritance tax on the first $1 million dollars worth of inheritance.
I call that income on accumulated wealth. And really, that is what property taxes are - a form of wealth tax. Again, that sounds extremely reasonable to me.
Hats to be axed wrote:
ryan foreman wrote:Actually I think that is the only tax the founding fathers believed in having. Income taxes on the first $100,000K of your hard earned income is the scam.
What about on your easily earned income?