Author Unknown:

I was having lunch with one of my favorite friends last week and the conversation turned to the government's recent round of tax cuts.

BRAVO! BRAVO!

Your scenario ignores the payroll tax.

Your scenario assumes the quality of the meal everyone is enjoying will remain the same, despite the discount. If the restaurant owner cuts his prices, he's going to have to use cruddier ingredients. In order to cut costs, he might fire a chef and replace him with some short order cook who doesn't wash his hands after wiping his ******.

Your scenario also assumes that rich people voluntarily take the poor of the poor out to dinner, which strikes me as pretty damned uncommon. People with money tend to design their lives so they don't have to be around people without it.

Schadenfreude Wrote:Your scenario ignores the payroll tax.

Your scenario assumes the quality of the meal everyone is enjoying will remain the same, despite the discount. If the restaurant owner cuts his prices, he's going to have to use cruddier ingredients. In order to cut costs, he might fire a chef and replace him with some short order cook who doesn't wash his hands after wiping his ******.

Your scenario also assumes that rich people voluntarily take the poor of the poor out to dinner, which strikes me as pretty damned uncommon. People with money tend to design their lives so they don't have to be around people without it.

Looks like once again, Shad shows his brilliant reading ability :rolleyes: . The rich dude didn't take them out to dinner, they split the bill. Even if they hired a different chef, everyone's food quality would be the same.

Quote:Looks like once again, Shad shows his brilliant reading ability  . The rich dude didn't take them out to dinner, they split the bill. Even if they hired a different chef, everyone's food quality would be the same.

My bad.

Look, in the real world, the rich guy eats lobster and two or three out of the the bottom ten buy what they can with Food Stamps.

[quote="Schadenfreude"] [quote]Looks like once again, Shad shows his brilliant reading ability

Schadenfreude Wrote:Look, in the real world, the rich guy eats lobster and two or three out of the the bottom ten buy what they can with Food Stamps.

You still missed the point. They split the bill. Meaning that the poor guys could have bought the lobster while the rich guy bought a couple of packs of Ramen noodles, and the whole damn thing is split. Its one giant order. This is not a comparision to who has what for dinner.

Are you trying to act retarded or does it just come naturally to you?

Again, your scenario ignores the payroll tax -- not to mention state and local taxes.

It also suggests there is such a thing as a free lunch -- that we can cut taxes without any impact on services that Americans want and depend on.

Schadenfreude Wrote:Again, your scenario ignores the payroll tax -- not to mention state and local taxes.

It also suggests there is such a thing as a free lunch -- that we can cut taxes without any impact on services that Americans want and depend on.

There is a "free lunch" for a certain group of people. It's just not free to the ones that actually PAY taxes. Don't get on here and tell me that I NEED to fund certain leeches in society. You want to? Fine. I am sure many others would as well. It's called charity. BUT, when you advocate that the government use it's police power, sometimes by force of the gun, to seize something that rightfully belongs to that person, that's flat-out theft and is NOT what this country is founded on. Deal with it. For every one of your rantings I will match it with logic.

This also has nothing to do with state and local taxes. We are talking about federal taxes. And payroll taxes incorporate SSI, Medicare, etc. Newsflash: I don't WANT to pay medicare OR SSI. You want it? Fine. YOU pay in. Just advocate that it go back into a private, interest-gaining account with the rest of the people that want the government to provide a retirement for them and have at it. They only REASON it's in the general fund is because Clinton and the REST of the damn Democrats moved it there. I will plan for my OWN retirement, medical coverage, etc. You see Schad, it's called person responsibility and independence. If you are not, then you are a slave.


....and it matters not one bit that "Americans Want and Depend On" these services. The majority doesn't rule here, as we are a Republic. Majority Rule is "Mob Rule" and will only lead to more and more people with the "Owe Me" mindset that will eventually vote themselves the treasury.

I think the fact that you -- and that guy George Bush -- are so obsessed with cutting income taxes shows your real goal: To shift the burden of paying for government away from the wealthy and toward people who can least afford it.

If you both cared about tax fairness, you would talk about payroll taxes, which are a greater burden on the middle-class and the poor than they are the wealthy.

Of course, there is an alternate explanation: both you and the President are suckers for the nonsense the wealthy people who would benefit most from income tax cuts are peddling.

Come to think of it, that's probably it. Bush's wife may be a librarian -- but he sure ain't.

Schadenfreude Wrote:I think the fact that you -- and that guy George Bush -- are so obsessed with cutting income taxes shows your real goal: To shift the burden of paying for government away from the wealthy and toward people who can least afford it.

If you both cared about tax fairness, you would talk about payroll taxes, which are a greater burden on the middle-class and the poor than they are the wealthy.

Of course, there is an alternate explanation: both you and the President are suckers for the nonsense the wealthy people who would benefit most from income tax cuts are peddling.

Come to think of it, that's probably it. Bush's wife may be a librarian -- but he sure ain't.

Uh, since when should the rich have to pay for things they don't need? (Welfare, etc.) A rich man won't need the government to help him pay a medical bill, but the poor man might. So why should the rich man have to pay more taxes for things he doesn't use? Think about it.

Quote:Uh, since when should the rich have to pay for things they don't need? (Welfare, etc.) A rich man won't need the government to help him pay a medical bill, but the poor man might. So why should the rich man have to pay more taxes for things he doesn't use? Think about it.

Because poor people need healh care too?

Because making sure they have it is the Christian thing to do?

Schadenfreude Wrote:

Quote:Uh, since when should the rich have to pay for things they don't need? (Welfare, etc.) A rich man won't need the government to help him pay a medical bill, but the poor man might. So why should the rich man have to pay more taxes for things he doesn't use? Think about it.

Because poor people need healh care too?

Because making sure they have it is the Christian thing to do?

Read your bible bud. Jesus basically said if you don't work, you don't eat. Oh yeah, and don't start using Christianity when you liberals are the FIRST ones that will scream "Separation of Church and State" when it doesn't fit your agenda.

About payroll taxes, it speaks volumes of you that you want the payroll taxes, comprised of state, fed., FICA, and SSI, paid for mostly by the rich......the people that don't even NEED SSI and Medicare. That is wealth redistibution and you are a Socialist. Hey sport, it's already been tried.....and it fails miserably everytime. Why do you insist on advocating a failed economic model? Could it be because YOU are a failure? These people want all this then they should work for it. If they can't, they should go to family, friends, church, or charities. ALL funded and given voluntarily. The LAST place they should do is go to the government that takes what isn't theirs from someone that rightfully owns it and redistribute it to buy votes.

To reiterate what T stated, where does it state that the wealthy should pay the brunt of the operating costs of government(%-wise)?


Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1:The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;