Something is wrong with the way they think.

[Socrates]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 6 2006, 03:24 PM']DW,
You have misunderstood my intent, it is not to bait. It is to dialog, sometimes to debate, and to plant seeds.

What I write might come across as "inflammatory language" to those that are wrong.... obviously this is my opinion. Some might like, some might not. If I  wrote "something is wrong with the way planned parenthood employees think" - they would get mad, it doesn't make it any less true. They get mad because something inside them is telling them it's true. No one likes to be wrong. Maybe one day they'll get the scales lifted off their eyes.

We see countless posts on here that are full of leftist speak, but God forbid we on the right have something to post. Why should their opinions be the only ones on the board?


LOL you D&D junkie. The name comes from a duel meaning...
1) iron - I use to do a lot of bodybuilding. monk - I am also into northern Shaolin kung fu (style: my jhong law horn).
2)iron - unwaivering Catholic faith. monk - at one time I was thinking about joining the priesthood and it's a Catholic thing.

God Bless!
ironmonk
[url="http://www.CatholicSwag.com"]http://www.CatholicSwag.com[/url] <-- Catholic shirts that know how to think.
[right][snapback]877602[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Youdaman, Ironmonk!

Your sn always personally sounded to me like some kung fu movie - "[i]Temple of the Iron Monk[/i] - See him smash the liberals with his lightning-fast fists of iron!"

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 6 2006, 08:31 PM']This is really starting to get ridiculous - let's just debate the topic, rather than bicker about whose posts are stupider or more senseless!
[right][snapback]877825[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I agree that it's ridiculous.

However, for all IM's posts saying he wants to "dialogue," I have a great deal of trouble believe that to be true. He's right in his own eyes, and the rest of us (with the apparent exception of you) are just too stupid to get it. Debate under those conditions is pointless.

[Socrates]

[quote name='The Price of Independence' date='Feb 6 2006, 02:48 PM']In my opinion, corporations shouldn't pay ANY taxes whatsoever.  The biggest travesty of the the capitalist system in America is the double taxation of corporations.  The corporation gets taxed for any profits.  Then the stockholder gets taxed for the dividends paid!  That's an absolute abuse and it hurts our economy!
[right][snapback]877566[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Hey Price, I tend to agree with you there!
Stick around on PM - There's a lot of bleeding-hearts and pinkos on here, but we need more men to keep up the good fight!

I think that the 16th Amendment (1913) is one of the worst Amendments made to the Constitution, and a change which would have horrified the founding fathers of this great Republic (who vehemently opposed the oppressive taxation of England)!

Yes, prior to 1913, the Federal Government had no power to tax the incomes of its citizens!

[url="http://www.salestax.org/library/skousen_16history.html"](Article on its history here!)[/url]

It is unjust, and punishes people for their work, and was the first major step on America's road to socialism.

It's interesting that the liberals here talk as though tax breaks are [b]giving [/b] people money, as if this money actually belonged to the Federal government.
If we had our heads on straight, we'd instead be asking why the government is taking everybody's profits in the first place.

The government should do away with income taxes, property taxes, and inheritance taxes. Sales taxes could be increased.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 6 2006, 03:24 PM']What I write might come across as "inflammatory language" to those that are wrong.... [right][snapback]877602[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That is going to be a quotation I'm going to have to remember!!!!

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 6 2006, 08:49 PM']The government should do away with income taxes, property taxes, and inheritance taxes.  Sales taxes could be increased.
[right][snapback]877852[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Don't you think such a system would unduly burden the poor because they'd be disproportianately taxed vs. what they make?

And inheritance taxes are already on the way out. They're set to be fully eliminated by 2011, although the law as it currently stands will cause them to re-emerge in 2012 at the same level they were before 2001. The way the system is being set up, the middle class will soon not be able to pass on inheritances of any size, while more wealthy people are able to protect more and more of their assets at their death.

[Jaime]

Sales tax is the most regressive tax around!

[Norseman82]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Feb 7 2006, 06:24 AM']Sales tax is the most regressive tax around!
[right][snapback]878596[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Yes, and property taxes to a certain extent, too.

Now I know that many of the proposals to shift the taxation from income tax to sales tax include provisions to exempt lower income people, but how would we accomplish that other than saving all your receipts and requesting a refund later? In my opinion (which I'm sure people who are wrong will find inflammatory, LOL), this would be even [i]more[/i] of a paperwork headache than the current income tax for a lot of people.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='Feb 7 2006, 12:45 PM']Yes, and property taxes to a certain extent, too.

Now I know that many of the proposals to shift the taxation from income tax to sales tax include provisions to exempt lower income people, but how would we accomplish that other than saving all your receipts and requesting a refund later?  In my opinion (which I'm sure people who are wrong will find inflammatory, LOL), this would be even [i]more[/i] of a paperwork headache than the current income tax for a lot of people.
[right][snapback]878739[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Maybe poor people could get ID cards, or wear special patches on their coats or clothing.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Feb 7 2006, 10:51 AM']Maybe poor people could get ID cards[right][snapback]878745[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

But these proposals are based on income, and once they are no longer inpoverty they would need to start paying the sales tax, so any ID card would have to be tied to a real-time system that constantly is updated with their wage and investment earning information. More headaches and too much "big brother" for me.

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Feb 7 2006, 10:51 AM']or wear special patches on their coats or clothing.
[right][snapback]878745[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Sounds too "Nazi Germany" for my tastes.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Feb 7 2006, 06:18 AM']Don't you think such a system would unduly burden the poor because they'd be disproportianately taxed vs. what they make?

And inheritance taxes are already on the way out. They're set to be fully eliminated by 2011, although the law as it currently stands will cause them to re-emerge in 2012 at the same level they were before 2001. The way the system is being set up, the middle class will soon not be able to pass on inheritances of any size, while more wealthy people are able to protect more and more of their assets at their death.
[right][snapback]878593[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I've worked a number of low-paying jobs, and can tell you the income taxes really eat up a lot of one's income!

Higher taxes could be placed on sales of expensive "luxury" items, rather than necessities such as food, etc.

One can modify one's spending habits, but one cannot avoid income taxes - which simply punish people for being productive.

And yes, I'm quite aware such taxes would not be able to support all of today's massive federal spending - I think the federal government should be cut back drastically.

The fact that everybody takes the government's policy of taxing citizen's incomes for granted, and people get upset at the idea of "tax breaks," acting as though this money really belongs to the government, shows how far the socialist mentality has crept into our common thinking.

The fact is that having no income taxes is not some radical new idea - The federal government did not tax anyone's income in this country until 1913 - That's right, for 137 years, no one in America paid federal income taxes!

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 7 2006, 08:47 PM']I've worked a number of low-paying jobs, and can tell you the income taxes really eat up a lot of one's income!

Higher taxes could be placed on sales of expensive "luxury" items, rather than necessities such as food, etc.

One can modify one's spending habits, but one cannot avoid income taxes - which simply punish people for being productive.

And yes, I'm quite aware such taxes would not be able to support all of today's massive federal spending - I think the federal government should be cut back drastically.

The fact that everybody takes the government's policy of taxing citizen's incomes for granted, and people get upset at the idea of "tax breaks," acting as though this money really belongs to the government, shows how far the socialist mentality has crept into our common thinking.

The fact is that having no income taxes is not some radical new idea - The federal government did not tax anyone's income in this country until 1913 - That's right, for 137 years, no one in America paid federal income taxes!
[right][snapback]879558[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Just something to think about when saying to tax the luxery items... when the luxery boats got hit with a big tax, it put a lot of people out of work. There has to be a better way, but it's ramifications need to be considered.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Feb 7 2006, 12:51 PM']Maybe poor people could get ID cards, or wear special patches on their coats or clothing.
[right][snapback]878745[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Branding might be easier.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 7 2006, 08:47 PM']I've worked a number of low-paying jobs, and can tell you the income taxes really eat up a lot of one's income!

Higher taxes could be placed on sales of expensive "luxury" items, rather than necessities such as food, etc.

One can modify one's spending habits, but one cannot avoid income taxes - which simply punish people for being productive.

And yes, I'm quite aware such taxes would not be able to support all of today's massive federal spending - I think the federal government should be cut back drastically.

The fact that everybody takes the government's policy of taxing citizen's incomes for granted, and people get upset at the idea of "tax breaks," acting as though this money really belongs to the government, shows how far the socialist mentality has crept into our common thinking.

The fact is that having no income taxes is not some radical new idea - The federal government did not tax anyone's income in this country until 1913 - That's right, for 137 years, no one in America paid federal income taxes!
[right][snapback]879558[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm aware of the history of income tax in America. Despite the fact it hasn't always been around, I don't think doing away with it would have as big a net change as you predict in the real buying power of your dollar. If you indeed limit sales tax to "non-necessities" (which, by the way, presents a definitional conundrum -- who decides what's a necessity and what's a luxury?) you still end up with the rich paying the lion's share of the taxes as they do now. And, you'd drive up the cost of products. I think the net change would be that your salary would go just as far then as now, while the changeover from an income-based system to a sales-based system would be cumbersome and expensive. A whole lot of trouble for not much payoff. Too bad you weren't around in the early 1900s when they were considering income tax.

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Feb 7 2006, 09:48 PM']Branding might be easier.
[right][snapback]879613[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You're right, of course. Branding would be the ideal way to go. If I had to be branded, I'd prefer it to be on my arse. "Don't tread on me," ala Bart Simpson. I could get a lot of pleasure out of proving my poverty-strickenness if that were the case.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Feb 7 2006, 11:54 PM']You're right, of course. Branding would be the ideal way to go. If I had to be branded, I'd prefer it to be on my arse. "Don't tread on me," ala Bart Simpson. I could get a lot of pleasure out of proving my poverty-strickenness if that were the case.
[right][snapback]879814[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I had no idea you were such a exhibitionist.

[JoeB]

[quote name='The Price of Independence' date='Feb 6 2006, 03:48 PM']In my opinion, corporations shouldn't pay ANY taxes whatsoever.  The biggest travesty of the the capitalist system in America is the double taxation of corporations.  The corporation gets taxed for any profits.  Then the stockholder gets taxed for the dividends paid!  That's an absolute abuse and it hurts our economy!
[right][snapback]877566[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

As the income of a legal person, corporate income is taxable. Corporations derive far more benefit from this legal distinction (for example, a corporate right to free speech and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures) than they incur harm from being taxed. A shareholder's personal income is distinct and different from that of the corporation since it will not be reinvested by the corporation.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='JoeB' date='Feb 8 2006, 02:58 AM']As the income of a legal person, corporate income is taxable.  Corporations derive far more benefit from this legal distinction (for example, a corporate right to free speech and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures) than they incur harm from being taxed.  A shareholder's personal income is distinct and different from that of the corporation since it will not be reinvested by the corporation.
[right][snapback]879977[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This is true.

As an interesting side note, the Fourteenth Amendment was passed after the Civil War as a means of establishing the personhood of people who had been slaves. However, o the Fourteenth Amendment cases brought before the Supreme Court between 1890 and 1910, 19 dealt with African Americans and 288 dealt with corporations.