The Teaparties

LostinKildare

Overheal wrote: »

Obviously, when you throw down more money than your friends for the Pizza that night, you expect to have a say in which toppings you get. On the other hand, your 4 other friends disagree with you, call you a smelly douche, and get a meatlovers, even though you're a vegetarian. Crude analogy, but thats essentially what has been going on as of late.

Are you suggesting that a wealthy person who therefore pays more in taxes should have a greater say in govt than poorer people? How oligarchic of you.

Tsk, tsk. What a shock to that 5% when they don't get their way.

DrumSteve

thelordofcheese wrote: »

It's also a beacon for every sore loser in america to come out and get some old fashioned hatin' on for the current president.

Shots are starting to emerge of the less savoury and/or borderline retarded placards.



Wow....

FYP

Pocono Joe

Overheal wrote: »

? Riddle?

Is it a Squirrel?

No riddle, just a play on words from the old song "Stuck in the Middle With You" by Stealers Wheel. Although I can see why you might think that, being as the Left can be a bit squirrelly at times.

Overheal

LostinKildare wrote: »

Are you suggesting that a wealthy person who therefore pays more in taxes should have a greater say in govt than poorer people? How oligarchic of you.

Tsk, tsk. What a shock to that 5% when they don't get their way.

Don't misunderstand me.

If every voter is, in theory, equally represented, they should be equally taxed. If they are asymmetrically taxed, then yes, they should - also in theory - be asymmetrically represented. However, nobody wants that - I don't want that, I feel that would undermine democracy. It also happens to undermine capitalism, since you are essentially adding a negative reinforcement against earning a large income.

So your only solution is to Tax Everyone Equally, with a Flat Tax.

LostinKildare

C'mon, WorldNetDaily, trumpeting out numbers handed to them from "Tax Day Tea Party national event coordinator Amy Kremer"? Love the journalistic rigor.

WND's reputation precedes them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily

Overheal

Again, the number of protestors is a farcical issue, and is Off Topic from the Point of them.

lmtduffy

Overheal wrote: »

Don't misunderstand me.

If every voter is, in theory, equally represented, they should be equally taxed. If they are asymmetrically taxed, then yes, they should - also in theory - be asymmetrically represented. However, nobody wants that - I don't want that, I feel that would undermine democracy. It also happens to undermine capitalism, since you are essentially adding a negative reinforcement against earning a large income.

So your only solution is to Tax Everyone Equally, with a Flat Tax.

this assumes opportunity to earn income is equal, it is not, hence flat taxes are bad progressive taxes, progressive.

banquo

Just scrap the income tax. Didn't need it before 1916, and it's not like they even have free education / medical card like we do. Just stop spending money on crap and let people keep all their wages.

It's not fair to say we'll tax you X% and you Y%, and you both get one congressman. I'm not even a high earner - fingers crossed for the future - but if they didn't go to war every 10-15 years, didn't have as big an army, cut the Dept of Education then there'd be a ton of cash left over.

Also: don't mess with Ron Paul. He owns the internet, and he may take it back.

lmtduffy

banquo wrote: »

Just scrap the income tax. Didn't need it before 1916, and it's not like they even have free education / medical card like we do. Just stop spending money on crap and let people keep all their wages.

It's not fair to say we'll tax you X% and you Y%, and you both get one congressman. I'm not even a high earner - fingers crossed for the future - but if they didn't go to war every 10-15 years, didn't have as big an army, cut the Dept of Education then there'd be a ton of cash left over.

Also: don't mess with Ron Paul. He owns the internet, and he may take it back.

cutting the department of education and other services would probably cost the country a lot more than it does now.

banquo

Explain.

lmtduffy

an educate work force is a benefit it breeds industry(taxes),an educated people commit less crimes, are healthier and in general less of a burden on the state.

If you want to get really technical you can also speculate that the cost of winding up the education system could outweigh the cost of maintaining it but Im really just scratching the itch which is my cost benefit analysis fetish there.

banquo

Ok, I'll give you the dept of education one, but really only because I don't know much about it's costs.

I do believe that taxation should be relative to representation, and that representation should be universally equal. Which would mean a flat tax. To quote Ron Paul "Pretty flat. Zero, actually"

Overheal

lmtduffy wrote: »

this assumes opportunity to earn income is equal, it is not.

I'm not assuming that and I don't see why that would be relevant.

A man earning $100 pays $6 say and a man earning $1,000,000 pays $60,000. 6 cents of every dollar* earned from everyone. Seems fair.

I don't see how its fairer for the first man to pay $4 and the second man to pay $80,000.

*Obviously does not reflect actual rates

lmtduffy

Overheal wrote: »

I'm not assuming that and I don't see why that would be relevant.

A man earning $100 pays $6 say and a man earning $1,000,000 pays $60,000. 6 cents of every dollar* earned from everyone. Seems fair.

I don't see how its fairer for the first man to pay $4 and the second man to pay $80,000.

*Obviously does not reflect actual rates

its fairer because one person can afford to pay more taxes an still live quiet comfortably,

and because it is likely that ones income is linked to the opportunities they got in life, so you tax progressively to ensure that these opportunities are there for everyone as in an open market they are not.

Its not equal its equitable.

banquo

Whatever the opportunity, it's still a lot harder to become a doctor than a Tesco employee. And in a country where you have to pay a ridiculous amount to get to (say) medical school, it's expensive too. So why tax them more?

The only answer is that a country needs the money to run. I'm a huge fan of public services. I don't drive, so I get the bus. Good stuff. But I don't see why some people - people who are not me and so I've no personal investment in an easier life for them - should have to pay a higher rate, especially when so much public money is spent on crap.

I'm in college in Ireland and the amount of money spent on nonsense is absolutely unreal. The course I'm on is terrible - not terrible in my opinion, terrible - yet the state will have spent upwards of e40,000 paying for me to do it. Some of our lecturers are total frauds, and they receive some very nice salaries.

An old housemate of mine is ex-Civil Service. One day in work his table broke, so me moved his PC an stuff onto a similar table nearby - someone had retired a few days earlier and his office would be empty until they hired someone to fill it. "Oh no" comes the voice of authority. They gave him TWO WEEKS PAID LEAVE until they ordered in a new table for him. My friend quit the same day, telling me that he couldn't work in such a place.

My point is that Governments are not businesses. They don't keep as sharp an eye on where money is being spent. I'm happy with my meager wage (for the moment) and appropriate tax rate, but I'm not happy for my neighbour who earns more but pays at a far higher rate. Even if I had to pay the higher rate too I'd be happier, but taxing two different people at two different rates when the person at the higher rate is the one who works the harder is insane, unfair, and often a waste.

Overheal

on top of everything you just said, that richer harder working lad uses a car, not a bus, and gets taxed additionally on that too. If theyre living better and they own more things they already are paying more in property taxes so again, I dont see why they needed to be taxed progressively more based on income.

banquo

Well, low earners don't pay a lot of tax anyway. But we need roads and stuff. I'm all in favour of roads. The problem is finding the money to reduce the taxes on high earners.

Or just have no income tax and live off all the other taxes; sales, inheritance, capital gains etc.

You're right that people who earn more have to pay more. My house mate (in college) has a family business (horses), but doesn't get the grant because of the high income levels. But, what doesn't show on the forms is the ridiculous amount of expenditure that's involved in running the business. So he gets treated as if he's rich, when really he's pretty poorly off.

lmtduffy

banquo wrote: »

Whatever the opportunity, it's still a lot harder to become a doctor than a Tesco employee. And in a country where you have to pay a ridiculous amount to get to (say) medical school, it's expensive too. So why tax them more?

That is why progressive taxation is often met with free and universal education, removing this problem. What you've outlined above is a good argument against bringing fees back into Ireland by the way, its the problem of taxing people, for the process of increasing their potential to increase their income as opposed to taxing their income.

The only answer is that a country needs the money to run. I'm a huge fan of public services. I don't drive, so I get the bus. Good stuff. But I don't see why some people - people who are not me and so I've no personal investment in an easier life for them - should have to pay a higher rate, especially when so much public money is spent on crap.

are you saying here that only those who use services should pay for them with their tax, or am I picking you up wrong?

I'm in college in Ireland and the amount of money spent on nonsense is absolutely unreal. The course I'm on is terrible - not terrible in my opinion, terrible - yet the state will have spent upwards of e40,000 paying for me to do it. Some of our lecturers are total frauds, and they receive some very nice salaries.

An old housemate of mine is ex-Civil Service. One day in work his table broke, so me moved his PC an stuff onto a similar table nearby - someone had retired a few days earlier and his office would be empty until they hired someone to fill it. "Oh no" comes the voice of authority. They gave him TWO WEEKS PAID LEAVE until they ordered in a new table for him. My friend quit the same day, telling me that he couldn't work in such a place.

My point is that Governments are not businesses. They don't keep as sharp an eye on where money is being spent. I'm happy with my meager wage (for the moment) and appropriate tax rate, but I'm not happy for my neighbour who earns more but pays at a far higher rate. Even if I had to pay the higher rate too I'd be happier, but taxing two different people at two different rates when the person at the higher rate is the one who works the harder is insane, unfair, and often a waste.

most if not all of what you described above is not due to the tax system, it is due to bad governance and management.

And would you not feel that since your neighbour is earning more,that he can give a little more and still live just as happy a life as you?

lmtduffy

banquo wrote: »

Well, low earners don't pay a lot of tax anyway. But we need roads and stuff. I'm all in favour of roads. The problem is finding the money to reduce the taxes on high earners.

Or just have no income tax and live off all the other taxes; sales, inheritance, capital gains etc.

You're right that people who earn more have to pay more. My house mate (in college) has a family business (horses), but doesn't get the grant because of the high income levels. But, what doesn't show on the forms is the ridiculous amount of expenditure that's involved in running the business. So he gets treated as if he's rich, when really he's pretty poorly off.

This highlights the result of our Government wanting to provide all those wonderful public services without the appropriate taxation, and you can look at any other public service and see the same.

wyk

Nodin wrote: »

Its amusing in places, primarily for its exposure of just how "Fair and Balanced" Fox news is.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/15/AR2009041503177.html?nav=hcmodule

You're not going to win any credibility points for quoting far left wing media in fighting far right wing media. We all know who the various medias serve.

What confuses me is the resistance to tea parties, regardless of which party you belong to politically. The government is spending and taxing, and there is no end in sight. Whether it be Bush or Obama, they need to be told that tax payers won't just lie down like they do in Ireland.

WYK

lmtduffy

wyk wrote: »

You're not going to win any credibility points for quoting far left wing media in fighting far right wing media. We all know who the various medias serve.

What confuses me is the resistance to tea parties, regardless of which party you belong to politically. The government is spending and taxing, and there is no end in sight. Whether it be Bush or Obama, they need to be told that tax payers won't just lie down like they do in Ireland.

WYK

there is no far left media in America, the balance there is skewed to the right, that seems to suit people, despite the loss in obvious benefits from more social democratic models.

It needs to get to the point where its not a matter of lying own and taking it they need to get to the point where there standing up and offering it, as if tax is payed begrudgingly services are going to provided begrudgingly.

wyk

lmtduffy wrote: »

there is no far left media in America, the balance there is skewed to the right, that seems to suit people, despite the loss in obvious benefits from more social democratic models.

It needs to get to the point where its not a matter of lying own and taking it they need to get to the point where there standing up and offering it, as if tax is payed begrudgingly services are going to provided begrudgingly.

OK, I will submit there is no 'far left' as that is communism. They are left-leaning. As Fox is right-leaning. So, thus, they were pitting a left-leaning against a right leaning. This is cancellation, not 'fair and balanced'. Which was my point.

I spent a fair amount of time in Ireland, and lived there entirely for the last year. Please explain to me the obvious advantages Ireland has over the US that I may have missed. It cost me more of my paycheck to live there. EVERYTHING is ridiculously taxed and expensive - so oppressively so that it took American money and EU grants to bring you out of your self-imposed and over-taxed depression. Your socialized system rewards and breeds mediocrity(and you have entire areas peopled with citizens on the dole for one reason or the other). That simply won't do here in the States. I must add that had I married an Irish woman and had children, I would bring them to Texas so that they may live in freedom and prosperity, vs what I saw in Ireland, and my wife would have been hugely pleased by the choice, as are the millions of Irish that have already fled your lands for the USA. Is one of your socialized benefits making Irish flee your country? Or are you saying those words without ever having lived in America for an extended time?

I can see you arguing that with the macro-socialization of the EU propping up the Irish economy, along with US investment, that it has worked for you some. After all, the Celtic Tiger wouldn't have existed without EU grants(and France and Germany and the UK suffering for it). So, that's a point I understand. However, I will like to point out that the US hasn't needed to rely on the EU to prop itself up(yet, at least). Unless you are going to use the education system to be a Doctor, I do not see much benefit from all the taxes and socialism. Even my local health clinic is affordable, and does not charge me $80 equiv just to see a doctor.

But you go ahead and not hold your tea parties, because it is obviously paying dividends. Enjoy your 17% tax on about everything. Insane liquor taxes(A bottle of Irish Whiskey here cost nearly 400% less than there), enjoy your up to 60% tax on new cars - nearly 900% more than I pay in new car tax, your road tax which starts at nearly exactly 600% more than what I pay here in Texas, Airline ticket taxes %600 more, and there is a reason why your fuel costs so much mroe as well - it is MOSTLY taxes, etc etc etc. There is a reason why your taxes aren't clearly stated in your prices - because you would go mad after seeing them. Oh wait, you might not, but reasonable Irishmen may...

And this coming from someone whom isn't a Republican, or right wing. I'm a centrist whom abhors mediocrity.

Don't get me wrong, I like some socialized systems, but by definition, it means the government runs your life start to finish, and that you are rewarded for mediocrity, with less incentive to excel. I must say that not only do I prefer the US system, but it obviously works better if you are worth a damn as a person.



WYK

Nodin

wyk wrote: »

You're not going to win any credibility points for quoting far left wing media in fighting far right wing media.

I was unaware the Washington Post was "far left".

In addition, are you saying that the events mentioned therein are untrue?

Nodin

wyk wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I like some socialized systems, but by definition, it means the government runs your life start to finish, and that you are rewarded for mediocrity, with less incentive to excel.

Yes, those 'mediocre' Germans, Swedes, Norwegians, French, Danes, Dutch....

banquo

In fairness though, it's kinda true in 3rd level education. I wouldn't mind fees coming back in if it meant my degree was worth more.

lmtduffy

wyk wrote: »

OK, I will submit there is no 'far left' as that is communism. They are left-leaning. As Fox is right-leaning. So, thus, they were pitting a left-leaning against a right leaning. This is cancellation, not 'fair and balanced'. Which was my point.

There cannot be a fair and balanced media, you can get close though.

I spent a fair amount of time in Ireland, and lived there entirely for the last year. Please explain to me the obvious advantages Ireland has over the US that I may have missed. It cost me more of my paycheck to live there. EVERYTHING is ridiculously taxed and expensive - so oppressively so that it took American money and EU grants to bring you out of your self-imposed and over-taxed depression. Your socialized system rewards and breeds mediocrity(and you have entire areas peopled with citizens on the dole for one reason or the other). That simply won't do here in the States. I must add that had I married an Irish woman and had children, I would bring them to Texas so that they may live in freedom and prosperity, vs what I saw in Ireland, and my wife would have been hugely pleased by the choice, as are the millions of Irish that have already fled your lands for the USA. Is one of your socialized benefits making Irish flee your country? Or are you saying those words without ever having lived in America for an extended time?

I agree Irelands tax system is a in shambles as I said before thats because we are taxing quiet little and expectin alot.

what the hell is a socialised benefit?

What words am I saying that would require me to live in america?

I can see you arguing that with the macro-socialization of the EU propping up the Irish economy, along with US investment, that it has worked for you some. After all, the Celtic Tiger wouldn't have existed without EU grants(and France and Germany and the UK suffering for it). So, that's a point I understand. However, I will like to point out that the US hasn't needed to rely on the EU to prop itself up(yet, at least). Unless you are going to use the education system to be a Doctor, I do not see much benefit from all the taxes and socialism. Even my local health clinic is affordable, and does not charge me $80 equiv just to see a doctor.

regarding the US being able to prop itself up, thats wonderful, but a point of the EU is that it wants to prop others up as they have faced the fact that any failed state, soicety or individual will cost the rest of the world at some point. It doesnt quiet cut it to say we've done alright so why cant you, the UK and Germany and the rest of the EU help eachother out now as it costs more to do it later, hence if America supported its citizens more it could have spent less, whilst buffering the effects of the recession to the same effect it has been attempting to do in the last year.

But you go ahead and not hold your tea parties, because it is obviously paying dividends. Enjoy your 17% tax on about everything. Insane liquor taxes(A bottle of Irish Whiskey here cost nearly 400% less than there), enjoy your up to 60% tax on new cars - nearly 900% more than I pay in new car tax, your road tax which starts at nearly exactly 600% more than what I pay here in Texas, Airline ticket taxes %600 more, and there is a reason why your fuel costs so much mroe as well - it is MOSTLY taxes, etc etc etc. There is a reason why your taxes aren't clearly stated in your prices - because you would go mad after seeing them. Oh wait, you might not, but reasonable Irishmen may...

Yes I hope to enjoy alot more taxes and eventually enjoy beter services and a safer and happier society,

and you can enjoy your insane amount of criminals, working past retirement to cover your health care and persistent and ever escalating boom and bust cycles and thats with the level of tax you have now, get rid of them completley and you'd be aswell living in somalia.

And this coming from someone whom isn't a Republican, or right wing. I'm a centrist whom abhors mediocrity.

Don't get me wrong, I like some socialized systems, but by definition, it means the government runs your life start to finish, and that you are rewarded for mediocrity, with less incentive to excel. I must say that not only do I prefer the US system, but it obviously works better if you are worth a damn as a person.

no it doesnt run your life, its a more meaningful and more benefical social contract that results in a happier ,safer and more peaceful society.

and no it does not run better by any means, because the US and its people certainly arnet excelling, where scandanavia countries are the most advanced, peaceful and succesful states on this planet.

Now you can of course say the US system works best for you thats fine, but the rest of us are realising that their is a rest of us and that they impact our lifes completley, and that when others benefit the rest of do benefit utterly.

lmtduffy

banquo wrote: »

In fairness though, it's kinda true in 3rd level education. I wouldn't mind fees coming back in if it meant my degree was worth more.

Come on were better of having all of society moving up the ladder, and in the least it will give you an incentive to better yourself more so to stand out.

banquo

But we're not moving up the ladder. An American college degree will still kick my degree's ass. And yes, it's a ''real'' degree.

bobbyjoe

banquo wrote: »

But we're not moving up the ladder. An American college degree will still kick my degree's ass. And yes, it's a ''real'' degree.

Depends on the College does it not?

banquo

Not really. It's a pure music course - a 'serious classical music course' - and one of a few serious ones in the country. But there's no really dedicated and professional music course in the country, unless you're doing performance (Cork, sorta DIT).

There are a few really top-notch courses (various subjects) in the country, but these are the exception.