Jeep Wrangler Forum - Reply to Topic
Jeep Wrangler Forum

Go Back   Jeep Wrangler Forum > General Discussion Forums > Off-Topic > Tax charge haha wtf

Join Wrangler Forum Today


Thread: Tax charge haha wtf Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Jeep Wrangler Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
12-11-2012 09:16 PM
BlueRidgeYJ My point is not the compensation of soldiers, their benefits, or their sacrifices.

My point is you cannot expect to spend more than, what, the next 15 countries (combined) on military spending, manipulate the price of corn, sugar, oil, and countless other commodities, pay old peoples perscription bills, fix roads, educate, and pay off industries in trouble all the while having an interest rate at a fraction of a healthy economys. It is very simple, and the notion that any cut to military is unamerican, unpatriotic, against the individuals, or in any way anything other than a MANDATORY choice is quite misguided by those that profit from the status quo.

My point is also returning to the verbage of the US Constitution, which says I don't need to pay your (and my) "20 year" friends for their service, because we are capable of our own protection, through state-led and maintained militias (as opposed to standing armies). But I can buy a 10/22, so that must be what the 2nd is all about...

After rereading this page, let me ask: Don't you expect to get your tax dollars back, too? Why shouldn't you? It is your money after all. I get that some (a lot) try to mooch, but we should all get an equal pie slice back, right?
12-11-2012 08:54 PM
i82much
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueRidgeYJ View Post
Add to that all these old people who think they have a right to life and those kids who won't go to work, with some 2 million folks getting an Uncle Sam Fighting check, and that 80 some % of retired generals work to procure contracts for defense companies, and we have no money left.

It is both sides, bread and boolits, but niether side will admit that (except Rand Paul).
I don't know what the hell an "Uncle Sam Fighting check" is but if you're referring to any of my friends who did their 20 and did time in Afghanistan or Iraq then the government damn well better pay them, and given what they went through, the gov't got a bargain.
12-11-2012 05:49 PM
BlueRidgeYJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by i82much
The problem is we have too many voters that are recipients of those tax receipts. Welfare recipients, Occupiers trying to get their student loans forgiven, gov't workers, union workers, affirmative action beneficiaries (gov't contracts), all of them get (or hope to get) money funneled back to them from the gov't. And they collectively comprise a large enough part of the voting population that us damn fools working 60 hour weeks in the private sector as salaried employees cannot stop them. We cannot stop them.
Add to that all these old people who think they have a right to life and those kids who won't go to work, with some 2 million folks getting an Uncle Sam Fighting check, and that 80 some % of retired generals work to procure contracts for defense companies, and we have no money left.

It is both sides, bread and boolits, but niether side will admit that (except Rand Paul).
12-11-2012 11:14 AM
i82much The problem is we have too many voters that are recipients of those tax receipts. Welfare recipients, Occupiers trying to get their student loans forgiven, gov't workers, union workers, affirmative action beneficiaries (gov't contracts), all of them get (or hope to get) money funneled back to them from the gov't. And they collectively comprise a large enough part of the voting population that us damn fools working 60 hour weeks in the private sector as salaried employees cannot stop them. We cannot stop them.
12-10-2012 09:39 PM
BlueRidgeYJ Yes, but we have also given a tax break to my brother, for example, who is a homeowning small business owner father of 3, for buying a Tundra, in a bill guised to further subsidize the American Farmer in blagrant disregard for the Free Market and its principals. That is equally unacceptable, as he has numrous tax "freebies" already, while many friends of mine who have no kids, do not own, and are "double tax" employed pay higher rates at lower wages, and couldn't "afford" (cause it is all credit anyway) a 15k$ truck to get the discount tax window come April.

We need equality and Liberty in America again. They are sorely missed.

And bare in mind I say this full well knowing if, God forbid, something were to happen to him I would feel obligated to care for his kin. Local is where it should be, and equal is how it should apply. I love that he gets discounts, I get better gifts - but it isn't right.

Also we can't have bridges falling down. We have a fundamental problem with not only what we spend, but also where.
12-10-2012 09:24 PM
scipio337
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueRidgeYJ View Post
Wow. Interesting read, though I didn't go too far back.

Doesn't anyone else (besides you Fun Killin Ninja ) get that federal spending is the EXACT same as you handing me a 20$ bill, me taking 5$, spending 5$ on what I pick, and giving you 10$ back - with strings on how to spend it?

Read the Constitution, and ask yourself "Is that the governance we have?".

Remember, we are the 50 States (countries) of the American Nation. Too much federal control was never intended. My brother believes that the "Life, Liberty, and Pusuit.." clause enables federal healthcare. I say that the verbage of the 10th Amendment is VERY clear. If the Constitution doesn't say the feds can, or that the states can't, it is the right of the states respectively or people (national ballot initiative). Can Mass make you buy healthcare? Yup. And NY can say no 40oz cokes. But the feds can't tell me much, or at least according to the Founders of my Nation.

Of course, amendments change that - but how do those happen again?

My shillings.

Well said!

I'm not sure everyone can grasp what was the intent of our federalist system. Besides, it isn't our people or ideas that make this country great, it's pur "infrastructure"!

The government giveth, the government taketh away, blessed be the name of government.

Let's just all hope the gas guzzler tax doesn't have its weight limit increased. I'd love to see some of those in full support when it's their ox getting gored.
12-10-2012 08:26 PM
BlueRidgeYJ A few I find relavent to taxation and federal reach. Best to listen to those that wrote the book, right?

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people. To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
"If we were directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we would soon want for bread."
"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money."
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?" – Thomas Jefferson

"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." – James Madison

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." – Patrick Henry

"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."*-- President Franklin Pierce's 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill.

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." - George Washington

"The Constitution only guarantees the American people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."
"It would be thought a hard government that should tax its people one tenth part."
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
"This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins."
"There is no kind of dishonesty into which otherwise good people more easily and more frequently fall than that of defrauding the government."
"I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power. I am naturally very jealous for the rights and liberties of my country, and the least encroachment of those invaluable privileges is apt to make my blood boil."
" ... as all history informs us, there has been in every State & Kingdom a constant kind of warfare between the governing & governed: the one striving to obtain more for its support, and the other to pay less. And this has alone occasioned great convulsions, actual civil wars, ending either in dethroning of the Princes, or enslaving of the people. Generally indeed the ruling power carries its point, the revenues of princes constantly increasing, and we see that they are never satisfied, but always in want of more. The more the people are discontented with the oppression of taxes; the greater need the prince has of money to distribute among his partisans and pay the troops that are to suppress all resistance, and enable him to plunder at pleasure. There is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharaoh, get first all the peoples money, then all their lands, and then make them and their children servants for ever ..." - Benjamin Franklin
12-10-2012 07:42 PM
Lotrat "We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."

Sir Winston Churchill
Date: 1903
12-10-2012 07:08 PM
BlueRidgeYJ Wow. Interesting read, though I didn't go too far back.

Doesn't anyone else (besides you Fun Killin Ninja ) get that federal spending is the EXACT same as you handing me a 20$ bill, me taking 5$, spending 5$ on what I pick, and giving you 10$ back - with strings on how to spend it?

Read the Constitution, and ask yourself "Is that the governance we have?".

Remember, we are the 50 States (countries) of the American Nation. Too much federal control was never intended. My brother believes that the "Life, Liberty, and Pusuit.." clause enables federal healthcare. I say that the verbage of the 10th Amendment is VERY clear. If the Constitution doesn't say the feds can, or that the states can't, it is the right of the states respectively or people (national ballot initiative). Can Mass make you buy healthcare? Yup. And NY can say no 40oz cokes. But the feds can't tell me much, or at least according to the Founders of my Nation.

Of course, amendments change that - but how do those happen again?

My shillings.
12-10-2012 06:24 PM
MTH
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTH
Most of your responses have just been insults, but I'm actually trying to get a sense of your opinion on these issues.
Nevermind. I went back and read through a sampling of your post history.

You work in "economic development," working either to promulgate or to secure government incentives for private industry. You believe the Internet and Microsoft would never have happened without government regulation or incentive.

On top of that, I'm going to speculate you're under 30. A recent grad from either an undergraduate or graduate program at a left leaning institution. You probably wanted to work in this field while you were there, and you're passionate about it and the importance of government involvement.

I think you're bright but probably misguided on a lot of economic issues. Time will tell.
12-10-2012 05:53 PM
steve66 I guess this will be a useless thread once all the oil is gone!
12-10-2012 05:44 PM
i82much
Quote:
Originally Posted by watson View Post
The notion of cutting taxes will certainly stimulate the economy is just an example of being ignorant on the subject.

Cutting taxes only grows an economy if that money is then put back in the economy through expenditures.
So which is it, cushy gov't job, union job with 10 weeks of vacation a year, what part of the system are you dependent on?
12-10-2012 05:39 PM
MTH
Quote:
Originally Posted by watson View Post
You're confusing word count with "analysis" and by analysis you mean substance.

"a penalty is a penalty" what does that have to do with whether or not government spending benefits the citizens?

You don't argue what anyone is actually discussing.
I am not confusing anything, and I meant "analysis."

You understand that the "penalty is a penalty" comment refered to matters discussed earlier. The conversation has since moved on of course, but you brought it up.

Now where were we . . . Oh yes--is it fair to say that you believe more government spending would be per se good for taxpayers, whereas less government spending would be per se bad for taxpayers?

Is that correct or not? Most of your responses have just been insults, but I'm actually trying to get a sense of your opinion on these issues.
12-10-2012 05:32 PM
lolpetewtf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeeperz Creeperz View Post
----
Is that your opinion? LOL
12-10-2012 05:28 PM
Jeeperz Creeperz
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolpetewtf View Post
How the hell is this still in JK tech? Same with that disastrous wheel thread. Nothing good comes of this. No one cares what anyone elses opinion is.
----
Is that your opinion? LOL
12-10-2012 05:26 PM
watson
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeeperz Creeperz
Government stimulus is like taking a cup full of water (taxes) out of the deep end of the pool (USA economy), drinking most of it (cost of bureaucratic inefficiency) and pouring the rest (stimulus) into the shallow end to raise the level of the pool.

The fact you drink pool water might indicate why this is such a bad analogy.
12-10-2012 05:25 PM
lolpetewtf How the hell is this still in JK tech? Same with that disastrous wheel thread. Nothing good comes of this. No one cares what anyone elses opinion is.
12-10-2012 05:23 PM
Jeeperz Creeperz Government stimulus is like taking a cup full of water (taxes) out of the deep end of the pool (USA economy), drinking most of it (cost of bureaucratic inefficiency) and pouring the rest (stimulus) into the shallow end to raise the level of the pool.

The federal government produces nothing that it does not 1st take out of the economy in the form of taxes. It is at best a net zero game.
12-10-2012 05:19 PM
watson
Quote:
Originally Posted by i82much

The notion of gov't stimulus is just a rationalization for bigger government and more taxes. If you want to stimulate the economy, cut taxes. Government has certain core functions it needs to accomplish, and outside of that it is inefficient crap.
The notion of cutting taxes will certainly stimulate the economy is just an example of being ignorant on the subject.

Cutting taxes only grows an economy if that money is then put back in the economy through expenditures.
12-10-2012 05:14 PM
watson
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTH

No, I'm just trying to assess the contours of your position on the issues being discussed.

So far, you've been long on snark, but short on analysis. This seemed like a good opportunity to tease out a little more substance.

As an aside, I note that while the hypothetical was intended to exaggerate a point to make the point, its logic was sound as to the point I was attempting to make--a penalty is a penalty.
You're confusing word count with "analysis" and by analysis you mean substance.

"a penalty is a penalty" what does that have to do with whether or not government spending benefits the citizens?

You don't argue what anyone is actually discussing.
12-10-2012 05:05 PM
Jeeperz Creeperz One of my favorite articles that illustrates government inefficientcy.

Federal employees' job security is so great that workers in many agencies are more likely to die of natural causes than get laid off or fired, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

Death — rather than poor performance, misconduct or layoffs — is the primary threat to job security at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Small Business Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Office of Management and Budget and a dozen other federal operations.

The federal government fired 0.55% of its workers in the budget year that ended Sept. 30 — 11,668 employees in its 2.1 million workforce. Research shows that the private sector fires about 3% of workers annually for poor performance, says John Palguta, former research chief at the federal Merit Systems Protection Board, which handles federal firing disputes.

The 1,800-employee Federal Communications Commission and the 1,200-employee Federal Trade Commission didn't lay off or fire a single employee last year. The SBA had no layoffs, six firings and 17 deaths in its 4,000-employee workforce.
When job security is at a premium, the federal government remains the place to work for those who want to avoid losing a job. The job security rate for all federal workers was 99.43% last year and nearly 100% for those on the job more than a few years.

Some federal workers more likely to die than lose jobs - USATODAY.com
12-10-2012 05:03 PM
Jeeperz Creeperz Quote:
Originally Posted by MTH

Do you really believe this?


Quote:
Originally Posted by watson View Post
Do I believe in the truth? Yes I do.
I bet he has a taxpayer funded job whether it is efficient or not.
12-10-2012 05:02 PM
i82much
Quote:
Originally Posted by watson View Post
Do I believe in the truth? Yes I do.
The notion of gov't stimulus is just a rationalization for bigger government and more taxes. If you want to stimulate the economy, cut taxes. Government has certain core functions it needs to accomplish, and outside of that it is inefficient crap.
12-10-2012 04:59 PM
MTH
Quote:
Originally Posted by watson View Post
Is this going to be another one of your absurd hypotheticals where by more government spending leads to me being shot in the foot by a police officer?
No, I'm just trying to assess the contours of your position on the issues being discussed.

So far, you've been long on snark, but short on analysis. This seemed like a good opportunity to tease out a little more substance.

As an aside, I note that while the hypothetical was intended to exaggerate a point to make the point, its logic was sound as to the point I was attempting to make--a penalty is a penalty.
12-10-2012 04:43 PM
watson
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTH

So . . . I think that's a "yes"?

Let's walk your premise out a bit.

Is it fair to say that you believe more government spending would be per se good for taxpayers, whereas less government spending would be per se bad for taxpayers?
Is this going to be another one of your absurd hypotheticals where by more government spending leads to me being shot in the foot by a police officer?
12-10-2012 04:31 PM
MTH
Quote:
Originally Posted by watson View Post
Do I believe in the truth? Yes I do.
So . . . I think that's a "yes"?

Let's walk your premise out a bit.

Is it fair to say that you believe more government spending would be per se good for taxpayers, whereas less government spending would be per se bad for taxpayers?
12-10-2012 04:24 PM
watson
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTH

Do you really believe this?
Do I believe in the truth? Yes I do.
12-10-2012 04:16 PM
MTH
Quote:
Originally Posted by watson View Post
The only people who will be hurt by less government spending will be taxpayers themselves.
Do you really believe this?
12-10-2012 04:07 PM
watson
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeeperz Creeperz


The federal government should do what taxpayers have to do during tough times, scale back on excessive expenditures. Until they cut waste there is no reason to give them more taxmoney to waste.
You say this as though the government is a living entity that will feel the repercussion of cutting spending. That is extremely illogical.

The only people who will be hurt by less government spending will be taxpayers themselves.
12-10-2012 02:48 PM
KittyPrawn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeeperz Creeperz View Post
------
Yes but people themselves (by their own choice) invested in those bankrupt companies. Our federal government takes money from us at the threat of fines or jail to invest poorly? That should never be the case. The federal government should be the framework to protect the laws of economic freedom never a participant. For whatever party that happens to be in control to decide the winners and losers of the economy is frightening. Citizens should be deciding that not bureaucrats that owe favors to special intrests that got them elected.

There is more waste than most taxpayers will ever believe yet we want to raise taxes on some for what exactly? The federal government should do what taxpayers have to do during tough times, scale back on excessive expenditures. Until they cut waste there is no reason to give them more taxmoney to waste.

If the money is going to war, make a war tax that we all pay until the war is over.

Unless critical to the function of the USA, there should be no such thing as a bail out or "investing" of taxpayer monies. If a business can not make it on it's own, it should go under to be replaced by better run, more efficient company provided there is demand for the product. Companies can also go the route of bankruptcy without federal government funnelling money to them. If the taxpayers themselves aren't purchasing a company's product, why is the federal government stepping in to save that company with taxpayer money?
People invest in things because on paper it looks like a good investment. Hindsight is always 20-20. But, I doubt that every investment the government has made seemed terrible on paper and they went through with it anyway. I'm not disagreeing about the bail out thing, but that's not the only place we invest money.

And then there is the question of who determines what is wasteful spending. There are some people who believe the amount of money we spend on our military is wasteful. Should we listen to those?

There will always be some waste in the government, depending on who is looking at it from what angle.
This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:47 AM.



Jeep®, Wrangler, Liberty, Wagoneer, Cherokee, and Grand Cherokee are copyrighted and trademarked to Chrysler Motors LLC.
Wranglerforum.com is not in any way associated with the Chrysler Motors LLC