Make your own using our Graph Builder or upload your own files, images or videos. All our charts are user-submitted.
« Previous Politicians’ answers to questions | Things that the Pinball Wizard does Next »
Make your own using our Graph Builder or upload your own files, images or videos. All our charts are user-submitted.
« Previous Politicians’ answers to questions | Things that the Pinball Wizard does Next »
TRUTH!!!!! an honest graph with no socialist undertones, excellent.
also, FIRST
for competency and speed you win 1 internets
Only problem is the graph-maker forgot Bernie…
Yes I realize that he has scam artists on there but c’mon… Bernie is in a class of his own!
Social Security is 1000X the Ponzie scheme than Bernie Madoff could have ever dreamed of.
actually, just about all pension plans are
Yes, no socialist undertones indeed, because that would mean that it was wrong.
I KNOW!!! It’s so terrible that the government is cutting taxes on 95% of the population and raising it for the wealthiest to 10% below where it was under Reagan. Communist Bastards!
They’ll destroy America!
I was thinking more along the lines of the jack ass cops that think it’s funny to give you a ticket for running a stop sign, even when they saw you come to a complete stop.
Yeah, ok, except the 95% don’t all pay taxes (40% don’t), and yes, raising taxes on the rich will destroy America.
And this is the best graph I’ve seen here in a while. Kudos to the creator.
Intellectual dishonest at its best. 40% of people don’t pay _income_ taxes because they don’t make enough money to do so. That 40% still pay other taxes.
Yeah! How dare they try to get the millions of dollars out of people like those corrupt bankers and give it to people who can barely afford food or a home. You communists! You’ll kill us all!.
Or maybe just make the rich slightly less rich and give the other people a chance at living….Which sounds more American?
Which would be a valid argument if the top 10% didn’t pay ~50% of the taxes.
But they can *afford* to pay that much. It’s not as if they’re paying half their income.
If they paid ¾ of their income, they could still afford it. These are the obscenely rich we’re talking about.
Yes because only corrupt bankers are rich. All CEOs and Execs that actually worked their butts off to get where they are should pay for someone because they happen to make less money?? My boss works harder than anyone I know, sends emails at 4am, works atleast 12hrs a day and without a doubt works when he gets home…and to top it off employs about 500 people in my state. But how dare he make money! That’s greedy! That’s corrupt!
This class warfare is pathetic. “Give other people a chance at living?” They have EVERY chance! Food stamps, subsidized housing, tax breaks, hell you can get a debit card and the government will load money onto it for you! If you don’t like you’re situation, get out of it. And don’t tell me people don’t have opportunities, people come from nothing everyday and make something of themselves. The lack of personal responsibility in this society is appalling.
Your boss’s inability to get a life is not really our problem nor the issue here.
Do you know how much of your precious tax money gets spent on “Food stamps, subsidized housing, tax breaks” and how much is spent on defense contracts for things we will never use, tax breaks for giant worldwide corporations, and land grants for oil companies that won’t solve any shortages but instead just shore up their bottom line at our expense? Here’s a rough graph:
All aid to poor and unemployed people:
|
All tax dollars given away to the insanely rich:
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just a rough graph.
Unless your boss has a golden parachute and an annual income with at least eight digits—which I doubt—we are not talking about him.
The ones making that kind of money don’t work half that hard. All they do is loot their employers while sitting on each other’s boards. Crooks, through and through.
Yeah, that extra $8 a pay really helps, y’know?
And the fact that I have to pay taxes on it next year is just icing on the cake!
1: Er, which government? The internet is (mostly) global.
2: On the assumption that this refers to the U.S. government, referring to tax collection as “stealing” is, in fact, inaccurate.
3: The “socialist undertones” comment is a childish parroting of the current right-wing media slogan.
4: Writing the word “TRUTH” in all capital letters is a sure sign that an internet poster is utterly uninterested in the truth.
and your post is a childish parroting of the bulk majority of the media who dont get the tea parties. good job
“Tea parties:” a bunch of Hannity and Limbaugh’s buttpuppets protesting the fact they not only will pay less in taxes but their taxes will actually go to help them, and not McDonnell-Douglas or Lockheed Martin. The very pinnacle of stupidity.
Even the very, very richest people in the US are going to pay :::gasp!!:::
Two percent higher taxes. OMG WTF!!!
Agreed. This graph should be posted over at failblog…
“2: On the assumption that this refers to the U.S. government, referring to tax collection as “stealing” is, in fact, inaccurate.”
Prove it.
Arguments that Taxation is not theft generally fall onto social contract theories that all rely on circular logic.
And this isn’t a rich vs. poor thing. Working class people also experience much lower standards of living because of all the dead weight losses caused by government.
Tell me more about “dead weight loss” – I don’t know about that.
Can anyone in econ, etc. weigh in as to what the ACTUAL tax rate is for someone making, oh, $50K a year? If you add all the taxes we pay, it is scary. You’re not just taxed once on your pay. Your employer might be taxed on his profits, your pay is taxed, you take your taxed pay and buy food and pay tax on that. How about your used car? The person who bought it new [paid taxes and each subseq. buyer pays taxes. Think about the aggregate taxes on ONE car over it’s life. Also, your professional fees your state collects, dmv, cell phone, landline, cable – every single transaction has a fee/tax associated. I would love to see a real analysis of this if someone has seen one. TEA PARTY!!!! I got taxed and I didn’t get represented when ‘bama gave it to AIG and Ford.
A total of 23 to 28%, depending on the state you live in. That’s including everything: payroll taxes, income taxes, capitol gains taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, etc.
*ahem* that would be “capital”
Wot, you mean like the 3 trillion dollars we’ve spent on the Strategic Defense Initiative since 1980? That “dead weight loss?”
Theft is taking something without permission or authority. The Constitution gives the federal goverment the authority to tax. The 10th Amendment says that the states retain their common law powers, including the authority to tax.
Are you saying you reject the Constitution?
FIRST
you fail
Join the tea parties!
Woot!
i second the “Woot!”
When did this site become Lol News? O.o
But also, very hilarious.
late this week. When PK descended into a liberal obama worshiping orgy of mud slinging and beating off at every “obama is so cool” pic someone put up. Of course this domain being hosted in seattle (assuming its local to the admin’s residence) is probably why theres the slathering love affair with kissing the ground he walks on by most of the people on there.
And then you wrong-wing tumors show up and infest the place, much to my dismay. GTFO.
If you don’t like taxes, go live in Somalia! (and no, I’m not American – I’m from a country that pays a lot more tax, but it’s worth it!)
If you think paying taxes is mostly worth it, you either receive more than you pay, or you’re naive – no offence – so was I not too long ago. There is a lot of space between “paying to much taxes” and “paying no taxes at all”. The spending and therefore taxation of any western government could easily be reduced by 50% without causing much harm. Military spending and subsidies to lobby groups alone make up most of it, and even if you want to keep other expensive stuff like Medicare and social security there are much better ways to accomplish these things than a government monopoly that depends on the whims and arbitration of those in charge.
You talk sensibly but I fear you want to hand things like Medicare and SSI to private industry where there is an armada of Bernie Madoffs just waiting to do their thing. Why do you think Bush had such a visible hard-on when he was trying to transfer SSI to Wall Street? Where would we be now if that had happened?
Like a private monopoly that depends on the whims and arbitration of the same crooks that brought you the mortgage crisis?
Brilliant idea. Let’s all go play chicken with freeway traffic while we’re at it.
It’s possible that your country is small enough to spend your tax money wisely.
good point … or they might have been socialist/communist/fascist and are now seeing the benefits of capitalism… which would put them 235 years behind the US in terms of wasteful spending on stupid social programs to give people stuff they should be getting themselves.
Ha, no, it doesn’t take them that long to catch up. Former Soviet-bloc countries had PLENTY of experience with graft and corruption. PLENTY.
What exactly are these “benefits of capitalism” anyway? So far, the only “benefits” I’ve seen are that it allows the powerful to become more so, while everyone else is either enslaved to the former or starving on the street.
Lol, seriously, go move to Europe. Hell, even Australia gets taxed more (I should know, I’m an American living over here) and Australia doesn’t get taxed as much as Europe does.
if you’re living there how do you know what its like here? If you want an example of a european country that doesnt pay a lot of tax look at russia. they are paying 13% flat tax right now and going after oil in the arctic. Or maybe that news hasnt gotten to the southern hemisphere yet. sorry if I spilled the beans.
Oh… you must work for the government then…
Please tell me you’re not retarded enough to seriously believe they’re going to try to tax you for exhaling.
Really, WTF? I blame the ignorance (I won’t say idiocy because that’s rude) of all the first four posters, this graph and the tea party poopers on terrible economic classes in this country. Does everyone forget that the purpose of government spending is, at its core, to do what the private sector won’t do but which the private sector would benefit from? Case in point: Roads. No way for a private company to make a profit operating a roadway, but society as a whole benefits immensely. So the private sector is taxed and gets roads – suddenly interstate commerce and little things like quick access to hospitals becomes greatly improved (not to mention job creation). I admit some people in the government are corrupt and theives at heart, but damned if deficit spending isn’t the only way to fight a recession! And to head some of you off at the pass, the only reason the Great Depression lasted so long was that, by all accounts, FDR’s administration was hounded by a conservative legislative branch. Fifteen percent more spending could’ve curbed the Depression by a couple of years; as it was, it wasn’t until massive public spending (WWII) became sanctioned by conservative party members that the Depression finally gave way to a boom. Subsequent prosperity came largely from a booming middle class due to increased incomes with the G.I. Bill and dual incomes. Just hope Obama can come up with an equivalent success on the education front.
You kidding me? Private companies could easily profit from roads. They could have tolls or advertising along the way.
I like this graph. It’s right. What’s the difference between the government and a normal robber? Your money is still being taken away from you by force. It’s still robbery.
Please move to Somalia.
you, sir, are a real man of genius
The difference … when the government does it its legal
Taxation is not theft. Taxation is a process created by ancient governments and approved by voters at many points in US history because it is an efficient way to fund large, expensive, but necessary projects and organizations such as education, roads, police, the military, fire departments, etc. The money comes back to you in the form of resources that might not otherwise exist. That’s why taxes make economic sense. Theft is when jackass politicians try to build unnecessary bridges in Alaska, start pointless wars in the Middle East, or bail out companies without fixing the problems that caused them to fail.
BTW, if you try to tell me it would be good to privatize fire departments, you need to think about how poor neighborhoods would avoid burning down if a fire started in one house on the street and started to spread.
How about sewer systems?
Private companies could only put tolls on highways. What about the small streets in cities, who’s going to pay for that? I doubt having a toll every crossroads would be very convenient…
How old are you anyway? I’m asking because apparently you don’t realize that taxes are used to pay for public services. And since you don’t seem to know what public services are, here are some examples:
the fire department, some hospitals, roads, running water, electricity, the military, the police department, buses and subways and many other things are public services (some of those services are private in some countries).
And if you are going to tell me all these things could become private services, well no they can not all become private!
What would happen if the fire department was private? You would have to pay a fee in order to have them help you in case your house burns. Off course they would increase the price for their services because whoever would own the fire department would try to make as much money as possible. And prices would increase to a point where not everybody could afford to purchase this service.
If the public transports were private, they would stop bus traffic in some areas because not enough people would be riding the bus in those areas (they would be losing money). So the few people living in those areas would have to buy a car, pay for car insurance and for gas (and if they can’t afford it how will they go to work or shopping?).
What about education? Should parents pay for their own kids’ education, while people who don’t have kids don’t spend a cent to pay for the education of the children of others? Sure, you could argue that parents made the choice of having kids, so they should be responsible for their kids, but who’s going to be your doctor when you are 80? The 12 year-old kid who is in school right now, that’s who! So even people who don’t have kids should contribute to educating kids, because they will profit from it someday.
Call it theft when politicians waste tax money on useless stuff, but don’t say that taxes are theft ; the biggest part of taxes is used for useful stuff.
Just real quick, let’s take a look at what can be privatized here
the fire department-can be privatized
some hospitals, aside from the VA, wait, no, including the VA, can be privatized
roads-can be privatized
running water-can be privatized
electricity-ALREADY IS PRIVATIZED…what the hell?
the military-ultimate extension of the exec branch of the federal government, cannot be privatized
police department-exec branch of local government, cannot be privatized
buses and subways-can be privatized
If it isn’t authorized by a constitution, national or otherwise, it is does not have to be provided by the government. Mandatory taxing to support it, whether it be the DOT or the dept of Education, is therefore theft.
Make that argument again after your house burns down and you can’t pay over $9000, up front, to have some firemen come out and try to save it.
Privatization invites greed. Greed causes suffering.
“If the public transports were private, they would stop bus traffic in some areas because not enough people would be riding the bus in those areas (they would be losing money). So the few people living in those areas would have to buy a car, pay for car insurance and for gas (and if they can’t afford it how will they go to work or shopping?).”
Guess what, this already happens. On large scale. Across America. Even in many urban areas.
For example, if you live close to any of the downtown major cities in the Seattle area, you will find convenient “public” (actually mass) transit to and from downtown Seattle. Trying to get anywhere else is a serious joke, because you end up spending nearly as much time commuting as you do working. I know. I’ve had car problems that have left me taking mass transit for 3 hours for a 20 minute car trip.
Either you walk the 2-3 miles to the closest bus stop and commute that way, get a job closer to home, or you ride a bike (which I’ve known many people to do when they can’t afford the maintenance on a car). No, it’s not ideal, but it’s called figuring out the ways to cope as an individual. Which, incidentally, is the American dream. Succeeding on your own merits and willingness to work hard. Not the government’s willingness to give you money they’ve taxed from someone else.
“You kidding me? Private companies could easily profit from roads. They could have tolls or advertising along the way.”
You… really haven’t seen what happens when private industry takes over something the government had run, have you? Have you gotten a look at “private” prisons? Mismanagement, graft, greed, corruption, and in the end, the job they’re supposed to be doing? Never gets done. I can’t believe anyone still talks about privatization in light of the gross mismanagement that’s been going on in the financial sector and the auto companies, just to name a couple. Hey, you wanna put air-traffic control in the hands of some private company too? That’d be a GREAT idea!!
Pathetic.
Highways perhaps. Not city streets. Do yourself a favor and look up “public good,” “non-rival” and “non-excludable.”
First of all, money for roads usually comes from tolls and other fees, not so much from income taxes, so that’s irrelevant in many states.
You’re right that deficit spending may be the only way to get us out of a recession, but that requires the deficit spending to actually be useful… and basically giving banks free money because they had bad business practices that were fully supported and even pushed by the government in many cases is not the way to do it, especially when billions of dollars of pork is added to the package. INDIVIDUALS need to be spending too, not just the government, and when you increase taxes, even if only on the top 5% or whatever it is, those people are paying more to the government when they would normally be spending it and helping the economy, and those top 5% really do make a big difference. Raising taxes on anyone is a bad idea in this economic situation, even if they are lowered for some.
You do realize that the top 5% have enough money that they could be taxed a lot more and still keep spending about the same amount, right? I hope you don’t think people like Bill Gates spend a large percentage of their earnings.
Well, people specifically like Bill Gates give massive amounts of money to things like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which fights hunger and illiteracy worldwide on a scale nothing BUT a government could otherwise do. But yeah, your point is otherwise valid = )
A government could do it a hundred times more effectively, with the collective economic power of the entire country—and not just a couple of obscenely rich philanthropists suffering from crook’s remorse.
Yup, I agree absolutely. Like I said above, as Bill Gates knows fully, it’s a matter of scale.
You do realize that there are only tolls on highways? I doubt the profits made from these tolls are enough to pay for smaller roads, such as the streets in a city.
Actually, they barely cover the cost of the maintainence of the toll roads themselves
Deficit spending is an illusion, which can easily be seen: The government does not produce anything. Therefore, it cannot create wealth by itself. Therefore, the government can only spend money that has been taken away from other people before. Therefore, all the money that gets back into the market through deficit spending has previously been taken out of it – there is no net gain. All the government did was reallocating the money and keeping some of it in the process.
Furthermore, recessions can be useful to the economy, just as a fever can be useful to the body, although both hurt. The market has to be cleansed from failing businesses, so that their remains can be “recycled” by those who are more successful. Without intervention from outside, this will happen all by itself. However, if it does NOT happen constantly due to government intervention, crises such as the current one, in which the government HAS to act to prevent a collapse of the economy, will probably become inevitable.
I am not against government per se, because I believe that large-scale anarchy is as impossible as communism. However, I believe that governments can and thus should only attempt to create abstract, general rules that apply to everyone equally. Any instance of arbitrary action by any government, that is, privileging or discriminating anybody regardless of the reason, is highly unjust.
Here here
the government produces lots of pork spending and bureaucracy so convoluted they cant even understand it (or bother to read it).
1937 the democrats had control of both houses of congress and FDR was in office (research the revolution of ‘37). He then tried to start up his new deal ideas and they were struck down by the supreme court as unconstitutional. So you know what FDR did? He threatened to pack an additional 9 judges on the supreme court of his choosing that would vote the way he wanted. So the supreme court voted against the constitution in order to preserve the court the way it was. Hoping that a future court would revisit the decision and reverse it. Unfortunately none have. More spending isnt the answer. and in ww2 the top marginal tax rate was 95%. after the war our economy fell right back down to where it was in 1933. Once we retooled and got back to producing again (and the dust bowl had settled) we began to climb out of the depression. dual incomes didnt really start until the mid to late 70’s after the whole sexual revolution in the 60’s. Obama doesnt seem to be any better at the concept of “limited government” than Bush was. So he most likely will only change the decimal place on the budget and on your paycheck.
Yes, right on, the government steals all my money! Wait, I have to get some of the free Canadian health care, okay, yes, HA HA finally nailed it, oh wait, my welfare cheque is here, back to the graph, yes! Oh my! oh wait, here’s my Ontario heating fuel refund for being a low income earner, as I was saying, right on! The government does take all my money! In 2005 alone I paid $1,200 in taxes. Oh wait, here’s my tax refund of $1,500 (yes these are real numbers!)
Damn government, taking all my money.
If as person such as you does not produce anything (which is obviously the case if you receive welfare), the government can hardly take anything away from them. A highway robber would probably not bother robbing a beggar crossing his path. It’s much more useful to bribe the beggar with some food and a few coins. That should however not lead the beggar the conclusion of seeing the robber as a benefactor. If necessary, he could and would still sacrifice him any time.
I know, I seen so many individuals on welfare that’s living better then me. I worked way more then 40 hours a week. Yet every time I got some where, there is a tax increase or inflation to take it away.
I remember I had a raise once. I got less on my take home pay because I ended up in a different tax bracket. Now, how’s that grab your as a reward?
That’s not how taxes work. A raise can never decrease your net pay. Ever. It is completely impossible.
it would depend on how close you were to the top of one tax bracket and if the raise put you over the limit to the next bracket. Jump into the next higher bracket and your taxes go up by a percentage of your earnings. If I pay 15% in tax now and i get a $1/hr raise I go into the next tax bracket which is 25% taxation. I would get less of a paycheck.
Please look up “marginal tax rate.”
please look up progressive income tax
Please check out:
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
And then realize that at $15/hr your annual income (assuming 40 hrs/wk & 52 weeks/yr) is $31,200, putting you in the 15% tax bracket. (Yes the way our tax system works in the US would prevent it from working out with these figures because you get a standard or itemized deduction, but for purposes of withholding, this is very close to how it’s calculated by your hr department.)
Now say that you’ve been doing a phenomenal job, so they give you a $1/hr raise. You are now making $16/hr with an annual salary (calculated the same as above) of $33,280, bumping you into the 25% tax bracket.
Your “take home” pay for the first hourly rate would be ~$26,520, while for the second hourly rate would be $24,960. You add in the additional taxes for social security, L&I and any state taxes and it is VERY possible that you could be taxed at a high enough rate in a new tax bracket to actually have lower net pay.
True, if you were an idiot that knew nothing about what a marginal tax rate was.
I know quite a few people who cheat on the welfare system.
A girl I know got a loan from the government for studying in college or university. She got kicked out because she wouldn’t study, and when she had to pay the money back, she said that her income was low and she had a lot of things to pay for (I’m talking about important stuff, like food, insurance, doctors…). So the government told her that she would not have to pay back anymore. And she’s the one who told me all this…
I also have a friend who works as a dental assistant. She tells me that most of the patients on welfare are wearing expansive clothes and shoes, a lot of jewelry…
Another person I know told me that her brother and her (both adults) claimed that they could not live with their parents anymore because of frequent fights. The government gave them money so they could rent a house. Actually, they made up the story about the fights with their parents. I am not sure what they did with the money (either they rented a house, or they still live with their parents but spend the money to buy other stuff) but in any case they still get that check every month.
And all the cheaters I mentioned here are immigrants. I’m not saying this to bash immigrants, that is really not my point. My point is that people can just come in this country (Canada) and steal it’s money the same way you can pick up sand in the desert. The cheaters I personally know all told me that they learned from relatives how to cheat on the welfare system before even coming here! So the whole system has serious weaknesses that should be fixed. I guess Canada just wants to be too nice with people…
On a side note, it should be observed that the cheaters I know are the type of person who are very opportunistic and selfish. For example, one of them borrowed money from a colleague in order to get a life-saving operation. 6 months later, she worked to have her colleague fired just so she could take all the credit for a work project on which they worked together (nice way of thanking someone who saved your life). These people (the cheaters I know) also frequently ask their employers for day off, on the grounds that it’s a religious holiday for them (and it’s actually not, but employers are just afraid to get a complaint for racism just for being suspicious and asking questions). So I guess it’s only a type of personality, but still, there seem to be a lot of people like these…
Lies. Student loans are government back and can’t be defaulted on even if you declare bankruptcy.
83.3241% of all facts are made up on the spot.
It’s true my friend’s cousin’s student’s doctor’s mother once read it on http://www.statsoutofmyass.com
The United States has similar loopholes in the welfare system. I know I am going to catch a lot of flack for this, but I believe welfare should not be run by the government. Once again, we have personal accountability at stake. The Government does not (whether it cannot or refuses to) hold welfare recipients accountable the way they should. I know a couple of families that abuse this system quite well. One of the families actually has their hobby farm along with over 100 goats paid for by us productive members of society. I know these people personally, and they are perfectly capable of earning their own living. But whether or not they are in a position to receive government money is not important. The fact that they own a large amount of property, feed a large amount of goats, and so on is the real problem. There is not a reason on earth that would cause me to believe I owe it to them to pay for their expensive lifestyle through my taxes. They are unmotivated non-contributors, and it does none of us any good to fund this sort of farce. This is where the private sector would be far more effective in helping those that deserve help, whether it is provide funding to those that really need it, or helping people get enough of a leg up to be able to stand on their own. The “War on Poverty” has been and will continue to be a failure.
You seem to be under the illusion that the poor are poor because they are unproductive. This is false. The poor are poor because they are being robbed mercilessly by those that are not.
Taxes are the cost for living in a civilized society, you stuck up ignorant consumerist pundits.
And America STILL has the lowest taxes of the First World. So shut up and sit down.
Yes, taxes are probably necessary. Doesn’t mean they could and IMO should be much lower.
And there are countries such as Ireland, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, Poland, Estonia, Australia, Denmark etc. that, to my knowledge, all have (partially even considerably) lower taxes than the US.
P.S. I’m neither conservative nor rich by any standards.
I thought hong kong was part of china.
More comes out of my paycheck here in Australia than did in Washington State.
In Switzerland, a huge part of your income will be used to pay taxes. Then you have to pay your share of the welfare system (the whole country must pay for this system and can profit from it if needed). Finally, you need to pay insurance and food, and those are very expansive.
If you earn 10′000 a month (the Swiss currency and the U.S. and Canadian Dollars are roughly the same), you might be able to keep 1000 to spend on anything you want. The rest of it goes for taxes, insurance, food, welfare, and of course the electricity and the water bill.
By the way, did I mention that this example is for a family of 2 parents and 3 children (all of them lower than high school)? In Switzerland you don’t get any financial help from the government if you have kids, so you’re better off not having kids at all! (It’s funny because at the same time they say complain because people on average have less than 2 kids, so the population is decreasing.)
And most people don’t earn 10′000 a month in Switzerland. I would say that such income is considered upper-middle class.
Most of the money is held in banks, and until very recently the government could not know how much you had on your bank account, so people did not have to declare that money when paying taxes. Switzerland also does not require that rich people pay a lot of taxes, because there is a maximum to what they have to pay (they really don’t pay that much, the limit is quite low).
So if you consider the overall Gross National Product, Switzerland will seem VERY rich. But look at who actually has the money, and you will see that the average people are quite poor actually.
Sounds great, and here’s the first cost-cutting idea: Dismantle our nuclear arsenal.
America has one of the highest tax rates in the world when you dont count the 50% of us who aren’t paying taxes. On top of that the only reason our taxes are so high is to pay for the social programs in the federal budget. The reason they are necessary is because the asshats in congress made the spending on those social programs mandatory…. While YOU are sitting back down go and take the time to read article 1 section 8 of the constitution. When you find anything in there that says the government shall provide retirement, health care, education, food, clothing, spending cash, and art to the people you come let me know. k? Till then I’m going to keep fighting for lower taxes and less spending.
I want to see a cite on “50% aren’t paying taxes.” That’s something Hannity and Beck and Limbaugh say all the time and therefore I don’t believe a single syllable of it. If half the people in this country aren’t paying taxes, it’s because half the people in this country can’t afford to pay taxes without starving to death. More likely it’s Limbaugh and Hannity wanting to feel like the entire economy rests on the shoulders of insanely idiotically rich people like them, and that simply is not the case. So, again, put up or please, shut up about that fifty percent.
Also? As I said elsewhere, “social programs” have never in the history of the US cost even a significant percentage of what we give to the Pentagon and to companies like Lockheed-Martin and McDonnell-Douglas. Not more than 1 or 2 percent of it. Ever.
50% aren’t paying taxes, you say?
Two words: citation needed.
I like this graph. It’s not trying to be politically correct. So the commenters that insist on trying to justify why it’s wrong – take the stick out of your ass.
The maker of this graph = stupid.
And where is the graph for internet pirates? The average college student steals hundreds of dollars of software and music.
Stealing something means taking it away from someone, so they don’t have it anymore. Download software from the internet merely replicates it. And one would certainly never have bought several terabytes of music and films or software such as Photoshop that costs more than 1000 USD.
It is stealing the rights to information. On pays for the access. If they then grant another access, it’s stealing. Maybe a bad example is buying a ticket to a movie and then feeling entitled to bring your entire family in with the one ticket. It just doesn’t work that way. Figure it out.
music and movies and software aren’t the same as movie tickets or a car or a house or your television. They can be copied and the only thing that affects anyone negatively is the creator(s) of that movie or music or software dont get the money from your sale. Yes if a large number copy the item it impacts profits but until it becomes unprofitable for the company to do such things there is really no huge loss. Music downloading has been around over 10 years (before p2p programs there were millions of people putting song on their websites… mp3 was the most searched for term on every search engine)… have you watched cribs lately? these people are not hurting for money. Movies make hundreds of millions of dollars in profits in the theaters then more when they get released on dvd. Music is played free over the air on normal radio/satellite radio and hd radio… the latter two are much better quality. So if the definition of theft is to take something from someone for the purposes of depriving them of their ownership of it then no copying music and movies and software isnt stealing.
Now the government passing a law that says just because you have a job means you owe us money that is extortion. Extortion is the use or threat of use of a legal act to gain power or money from another. The Fed did it to several banks in 08 with the tarp bail out. It was “take this money or we’ll publically audit you for 5 years”… threat of a legal action, an audit, to gain power over a person or entity, the bank. The IRS is the same way. you made ‘x’ amount of dollars so you owe us ‘n” dollars of your paycheck every week or we’ll charge you fees and audit your finances.
When an individual does it everyone calls it stealing but when the government passes a law that says they can do it everyone bends over and takes it without any lube.
So defrauding someone of potential income is good, but paying money towards the maintenance of social order is bad. Gottcha.
define potential income. Because your concept of taxes is taking money from those who’ve earned it and giving it to those who didnt. How is that a good idea?
Now you are just twisting my words. I think your agenda has gotten a little out of hand.
Stealing means taking something without consent of the owner.
A bank robber wouldn’t have opened a bank account if he hadn’t robbed the bank, but he’s still a bank robber.
Yeah i forgot the government dose not supply any from of military defense postal service or anything else.
the entire defense budget is 16.5% of the federal budget. the postal service was partially privatized back in the 80’s. The rest goes to social programs. Like social security at 20.9% of the budget (these are 2007 numbers off the top of my head so they might be off a bit), medicare at 13.4%, and welfare at 9%. whats 20.9 + 13.4 + 9? Oh yah a hell of a lot more than we need to be paying!
oh and those percents are out of the 3 trillion dollar budget… 3 trillion… thats 3,000,000,000,000.00 dollars! 1 billion dollars is the size of a pallet stacked 3 ft high with 100 dollar bills (or 1 square yard)… 1 trillion dollars is 1000 square yards of 100 dollar bills. and they say they need triple that amount to fund our military, pay the people who work in the government and pave our roads (which they dont even do its the state’s that do that through their gas taxes). I only say those things because those are the only things that are in the constitution. That means that that and paying of the national debt is all they are allowed to do. But every president from Jefferson till Obama has grown the national debt…. well except jackson he sold a lot of federal land to pay it off for the last few months of his presidency (and yes he was a democrat).
Alright then don’t pay, just don’t use any thing government supplied no civil service you cant eat at a restaurant that’s ever been inspected you’re not allowed to vote, drink any and all water you don’t find your self, eat any food that may have been inspected by US customs, the FDA etc etc.
Speaking of FDA I would like it if they would allow me to purchase 500mw lasers, I enjoy pointing those things at random surfaces.
you dont have an option to not pay or more people would.
“you dont pay taxes… they take taxes” – chris rock
Of the 2.3 trillion that was taken in as taxes last year, (IIRC it was 2.3 trill out of 12.7 trill reported) over a trillion went to the military (this includes VA and pensions), SS, and Medicare, and medicad.
I’d like to point out, that military spending is discretionary, while SS and medicaid are not.
Not making a point, just providing some more updated numbers
I need to ammend this….
We spent between 500 and 600 MILLION, not billion, on the military and SS apiece….think about that…..less than 1.3 BILLION on the two largest parts of our budget, and we took in 2.3 Trillion. Where’s the rest of that money going to?
Your stats are obviously incorrect, almost by your own admission.
Mods: You can ** out the naughty word if you like, sorry, my bad.
Even if you Teabaggers manage to abolish taxing, you’ll still end up paying the money you thought you would gain.
Taxes for public roads will just be replaced with toll booths for private roads. Taxes for police will just be replaced with P.I. fees and bounties, or vigilante work. Taxes for military will just be replaced with mercenary payouts or militia work.
tl;dr, Civilization isn’t free.
No one wants to abolish taxes. People want fair taxes. Since when was that a bad thing?
Some people DO want to abolish taxes though. I’ve met plenty.
I’m all for fair taxes, but most people don’t know what they’re talking about. They just want more money.
“They just want more money.”
-
Exactly. It is nothing more than greed thinly veiled by principles. It really makes me sad. You can’t have a conversation with someone who supports this non-sense because their “argument” is rooted in some primitive biological impulse for amassing resources.
This is an unfair generalisation. You could equally blame all those as being greedy who want higher taxes, as they usually benefit more from higher government spending on welfare etc than they would suffer from the tax increase. Both is stupid though. Almost all humans are “greedy” in some way, it’s part of their nature and not a bad thing per se. Don’t blame people for what they want but for what they do to achieve it.
It is true is that taxation IS theft, there’s no way denying that. Whether it’s for a good purpose and a lesser evil serving a greater good is another question. I for my part believe that government is a necessary evil, and that there is thus a necessary amount of force that has to be used to prevent worse. However I know people who do believe that anarchy is both possible and a good thing, and they consequently also want to abolish taxation. I do not think that greed is their motivation.
Good point on those who are pro-tax being selfish in a different way.
-
I still don’t understand the “tax is theft” line. You concede that government and thus taxation is a necessary evil, so if it’s necessary, why isn’t taxation necessary? Seems like the whole “have your cake and eat it too” ordeal.
-
Anarchy is possible? Yeah, I’ve seen Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. Seems awesome, but I wouldn’t call that a step up from where we are.
Well, now you’re getting into batguano crazy Libertarianism which preaches anarchy and individual sovereignty as a social and econimical ideal.
The “taxation is theft” line should (and it doesn’t always) come from the fact that we are taxed by force for things that the government has no right to tax is for as it is not allowed in the Consitution, national or state.
You will never convince me that it is more efficient to send our money to DC to be scrubbed through the Dept of Education, then filtered through teachers and text book lobbies and then given back to the states in such a manner that they can actually use it to meet the fed gov’s requirements. This failed in No Child Left behind and will continue to fail.
Keep the money close to home, as the Framers intended, and it will be easier to hold government accountable. This should lead to better government, and better society.
No, it’ll just be taken, effectively by force, by massive corporations instead. Those guys don’t even pretend to be accountable.
Maybe serfdom sounds like “better society” to you, but I happen to like having some semblance of freedom, thank you very much.
Thunderdome wasn’t anarchy, Mama was the charismatic dictator and head of government.
You may want to bear in mind the millions of lives that have been taken in wars, internment of citizens (like in WWII), economies ruined by poor policies, sanctions and foreign policies that starve other countries (quite literally, but more specifically for resources), and untold amounts of money squandered away by corrupt politicians…
These are all symptoms of bloated government. Some people do have principles.
As a side note, Democrat or Republican is not a set of principles – It’s a team you choose to cheer on.
The problem with your theory is that private businesses are no better. They don’t even pretend to serve the public good; they exist only to make their owners richer.
While it’s true that some people do have principles, none of them are in charge of large companies.
Exactly.
Also, as for all the money you’d be spending paying for things that you currently take for granted (roads, police, etc.)…by the time an emergency comes up (house catches fire, you need to pay the firefighters), you likely would have already spent it all on porn.
Then all those who prefer porn die through their own stupidity, while all those who spent it on an insurance which again pays for fighting fires etc would live and prosper. That the government is the exclusive provider of a certain service does not mean it’s the only one would COULD provide it.
Yet the government asks for a lot less than the insurance companies. Your lack of brains disturbs me. May the insurance companies be with you.
It’s obvious you’ve never actually needed any sort of insurance.
“Those who spent it on an insurance which again pays for fighting fires etc” would find that their insurance actually doesn’t cover fires (or anything else). Insurance companies are in the business of not paying, and they’re damned good at it.
Government is the only one that could provide such services, simply because nobody else ever will.
Thats what I want. Businesses are better at being businesses than the government. I’d rather have businesses run the roads and stuff. Of course, an anarchy couldn’t work, so the government would still have to control the police and army.
Yeah, Bear Stearns and Chrysler proved how great business are at being businesses, that’s for dern sure.
actually the problem the informed citizenry of this country have with the spending going on is that they arent spending it on roads or bridges or other infrastructure programs. Its that they are spending 1.8 million to figure out why pigs in iowa smell. 1 million for a tea pot museum in NC. 1 million for a woodstock (the concert) museum in NY. and on and on and on. Then on top of that they spend billions on social programs that some people have become dependent on (like social security which is almost a trillion dollars a year now). The people in washington know that if they can make people more dependent on the government then they will vote for people like obama who will raise taxes on those evil rich people and give it to us nice gentle poor people. Then when the rich cant afford to keep their business open we all go running to big brother ‘bama for more help. 10 years later we’ll look back and wonder what happened to our freedoms… because lo and behold the government controls everything.
The founding fathers of this country gave us a republic (not a democracy). A republic is rule by representatives of the public abiding by an agreed to set of laws. The laws that were originally written down were those of the constitution. Those laws set the limits on government and what it could do and what it could spend its money on. Yes postal roads and defense are 2 things that are in there. But so much of the budget isnt in there because over time (especially in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s) we stopped paying attention to the constitution and just went with whatever laws congress wanted to pass and judicial precedents.
What the tea party participants seek is a return to the founding principles and the end of government taxing and spending us into oblivion. We see obama’s budget, we see tarp1 and tarp2, we see the omnibus bill, we see all this spending and go … where the hell are you getting the money for this crap? Since the only ways government makes money is by taxation, borrowing from other countries, printing it, and stealing money from the federal reserve and/or federal pensions… And china is saying they arent sure they wanna buy our debt anymore that leaves 3 ways. Higher taxes, doubling (or worse) the national debt which we will eventually have to pay off… you know since its in that pesky constitution thingy. Lastly we have printing more money, which devalues the dollar even more.
So you’ll have to excuse me if I dont like those options and think that the government should stop spending money on national healthcare and giving every person over 65 about 1100/mo in the middle of a recession.
Pig smell- Methane gas is a huge renewable energy source. They already get it from cows now there trying for pigs.
And Museums that create jobs and bring tourism to communities, Whats wrong with that? Honestly 1 million for a museum that will be around for hundreds of years does not seem like that much when we spend 50k on one bomb in Iraq.
whats wrong with it is its unconstitutional thats what.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8
Tell me if you see sponsoring museums in there anywhere. Social programs miss the point of the constitution entirely. The constitution limits government to specific enumerated powers. It is not the basis for our government for the legislature to add onto as they wish. It was only when the progressive movement hit america in the early 1900’s that the federal government started these social programs to provide people with things that they should be doing themselves. That creates dependency on them for further funding and thus creates a group of people who will consistently vote for the party that promises the most handouts.
“In order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” pretty much covers it.
So true…although the government takes a lot of it, it is YOUR choice to stay in the country…if you don’t want to pay taxes, then go somewhere with lower/no taxes, or try to cheat…either way, you still lose something; In one, your country, the other, your pride
Why do *I* have to do something? Why can’t I just stay where I live and send a letter to the government saying that I don’t want to pay them anymore, and that I consequently also no longer wish to use any of their services (except for roads of course, which I could pay for on a per-use-basis)? Because in this case, all the rich folks would do this. THEY don’t need the government, but the government needs them.
As do the people who AREN’T rich, because their parents weren’t rich because their parents weren’t rich because the rich person’s great-grandparents extorted the poor persons parents 100 years ago. You end up where you started, taxes even the playing field a little. Socialism FTW
That’s not true at all. Of course those who were rich and powerful often exploited the poor. This is why we need a stable legal basis to protect the life, liberty, and property of EVERYONE equally. This is the single justified function of government. However, being poor does not mean that you have to stay poor. In my own country, Germany, many leading businesses were founded by people from the working or lower middle class. For example, the German Walmart equivalent, Aldi, was founded by two guys who worked in a store – they did not even own it. Today they’re the richest Germans and among the richest people of the planet. This happened in the early 50ies, when there was not yet a complex welfare state.
I think that people are only predestined by either the suppression through others or by their own lack of belief in freedom. The rich can lose everything if they aren’t careful, and the poor can become rich if they achieve or create something people are willing to pay for. These are the merits of a free market economy. In socialism, it all depends on the benevolence of those in charge, which is usually very questionable.
Pulling yourself up by the boot straps and making a fortune is indeed the American dream, but it is not available for everyone. The American dream is only available for tiny fraction of people. I get angry when I hear people explain how “the poor” can better their own lot, because they can’t. Only a small percent of the poor can start a business and grow it. To think otherwise is absurd. The fact of the matter is that there will always be unemployed and poor people. This is not something that one can just wish away.
First of all equal opportunity does not guarantee equal outcomes. Look at Obama. He grew up poor and worked his ass off and got his college paid for by a sponsor of the black panthers and then started a skyrocket ride to the presidency with absolutely no qualifications or experience doing jack squat other than 2 summers as a legal intern during college. That is your american dream right there. A man who by all accounts is just another shifty two faced lawyer whos never even gone to trial becomes president on a wave of populist opinion from a youth who isnt paying attention they just know they are supposed to hate bush because the media tells them to. If thats not affirmative action for you I dont know what is.
Everything you said is pretty much true, and in fact, inevitable The question is whether the government can do anything about it, and whether it SHOULD.
1. No, the welfare state actually keeps families below the poverty line, and often drags the people straddling it down, along with the taxpayers. Has the situation improved? No.
2. No, because it’s a failed policy. Look at how it’s been extrapolated to “developing” countries. Has aid been effective? No. I want to help, and do help poor people, and if you want to do the same you have to empower them, not appease them. If you want to help, stop telling me to pay my taxes and get off your own ass.
I don’t mean you as in you, I mean the general “you,” so don’t flame me.
Yeah, because being a part of the United States isn’t what MADE them rich. Or their families, or what have you.
If that were true no rich people would live here, since they can live anywhere they like.
Person who made this graph: funny even if wrong.
People setting that person straight: uptight even though right.
Thank you. Whenever something arguable and funny, but completely non harmful comes up, people don’t laugh, they argue.
Hey, would the LDS church fall under “scam artists” here? Much more of its money goes into land acquisition, imposing grandiose temples, and meddling in politics than charity.
Case in point: My boyfriend’s family is extremely poor right now. They can barely afford food, and definitely can’t afford to repair their house. LDS church: “Tough, you have to keep tithing or we’re kicking you out.” When they so love telling people that the tithe is intended to go to people in exactly that kind of situation…
ugh thats tough. I have a question though. When does a cult turn into a church officially? Not knocking your boyfriends religion but the LDS churches are always being busted by the cops for child abuse and stuff. With your statements here it makes me wonder if they are in fact a cult offshoot of Christianity.
To be fair, the FLDS churches are the ones that have been getting done for child abuse, not LDS ones.
ok well that doesnt answer my question but thanks.
Luckily, my boyfriend managed to escape the LDS clutches. His family converted after he left home.
As to your question, though, “cult” is hard to define anyway. As far as I can tell, it means “a religion I don’t like.”
lol thanks and congrats on getting out
Good graph!
The only ones who like all the taxes we pay are those who are too lazy to work and make their own money and pay their own bills. (hence the ones who aren’t really paying the taxes)
dont forget the movie stars and musicians who make millions of dollars and think that they can pay more because they still have millions of dollars.
Yeah, ‘cuz there are SOOOOO MANY who are “too lazy to work.” Voluntarily being unemployed just because you don’t want to have a job is SUCH a way to go these days.
You don’t honestly believe that do you? Please say you don’t. Because it’s insane.
Socialism FTW
Socialism failed every single time. I have a certain respect for left-wing libertarians such as Noam Chomsky or communists who just wnat to live in their own little society without forcing anyone to shre their system, but socialists are just plain idiots. After a century of failed experiments with millions of dead and incredible poverty everywhere it has been tried, one should finally admit that this system, as nice as it might sound in theory, was a bad idea. Korea and Germany, two completely different countries with completely different people, which were suddenly divided in a socialist and a capitalist part for several decades, are more than enough proof in my eyes. You don’t have to like capitalism, but you cannot deny one thing: It works.
Silly thing to say, because all successful nations are mixed economies.
Not fully socialistic and not fully capitalistic either. A mixture.
Americans don’t know what socialism is, this is why they often fail to even recognize it.
Communism as it has been and is have been failures. But any communist could claim that this is not true communism, because the government should get out of the way and the workers should have the power. No such thing has existed to my knowledge.
To have a hint on how it could work watch the documentary “The Take”. At your workplace, you’ll have one vote, you’ll have some influence over your work place.
(Btw, I’m social liberal)
I am not an American. I live in a country that has suffered from several forms of socialism over the course of its history. And in opposite to communism, socialism DID exist on a large scale, at least if defined socialism as an economic system in which the majority of the means of production are owned by the state, which is the official definition as far as I know.
To say that all successful nations are mixed systems is not entirely true. Of course, most systems contain elements of both capitalism and socialism. However, I think that in most areas and up to a certain point, a higher amount of capitalist than socialist policies is definitely favourable. I might prefer a 50:50 mixed system to Anarchocapitalism, if such a thing exists, but a 70:30 free market would be favourable to a 70:30 socialist system.
The claim that there has never been any REAL communism, except in very small communities whose members joined them on their own free will, is certainly true. And of course it is equally true that there has never been any absolutely pure form of capitalism. However, what matters are the results of the ATTEMPTS to create such systems. And one cannot deny that communism or whatever people thought it to be had mostly to be forced on people, while most welcomed capitalism with open arms. The ONLY exception to this rule known to me is Chile. However, although I do in no way wish to justify the deeds of the Pinochet junta, as there is no excuse for them, we have to look at the results here as well: 30 years after the coup d’etat, Chile is a free and democratic country as well as the wealthiest nation of south America with the exception of the much larger Brazil, while countries like Cuba or North Korea are still dictatorships, and most other former socialist countries such as Russia aren’t wealthy or free either.
Cuba is anything but a dictatorship – http://www.newhumanist.com/geiser.html.
No, people in Cuba are not wealthy. But they also have a hell of a lot better a system that Canada or the States to give people a chance for a productive, healthy life.
Cuba IS a horrible dictatorship with all the sad common features of such systems, including mass murder and suppression of minorities. Fidel Castro and his trusty “Darth” Guevara had thousands executed shortly after they rose to power, among them many homosexuals which Guevara personally despised. They and other minorities such as AIDS victims, Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, blacks et cetera were moved into labour camps which only by the lack of gas showers could be distinguished from the nazis’ concentration camps.
If you think that Cuba has changed today, please keep in mind that the very man who authorised all of these crimes against humanity, Fidel Castro, was still in charge until not even two years ago, and now it’s his brother. If you deny this sad but obvious truth, than I am sorry to say that I believe you are heavily deluded. I don’t know if capitalism is the best possibly system, but socialism is a crappy alternative.
Also, if the Cuban system is better than the American, why do people flee in one direction only? Why did so many people desperately try to cross the Berlin wall to reach the west (many of which were shot in the process), while only few moved from the west to the east even though they were free to do so?
when one person runs the entire country and everything has to go through him and his cabinet and there is no way to over rule them that is a dictatorship. Technically its an oligarchy but thats splitting hairs.
Not true. Cubans only recently were allowed to purchase computers and cellphones. The Cuban government is way too powerful.
I used to serve on nuclear subs for the US military, once, on the way out to the divepoint we came upon over 20 makeshift rafts made by Cuban refugees trying to make it to the US. They were fashioned from oversized tire innertubes, bathtubs, lawnchairs, and they were all different.
They were designed to make the 1500 mile trip from Cuba to the US. I can’t imagine going down the Ohio river more than 10 miles in any of them.
I find it hard to believe that Cuba is a paradise if the citizens themselves flee island at an alarmingly higher rate every year. Don’t believe Michael Moore, he’s an idiot.
Cuba’s actually only 90 miles from the US, but I imagine a decent spot to put your raft in and prevailing currents make that a little hard to do.
The spanish voted in communist leadership after the madrid train bombings in umm 04 i think it was… maybe 05. The nazi’s voted in hitler which was a form of racism under the name fascism. Short of those two times you are right though… most of the time communists take over a country in a coup or invade like in korea and vietnam. The only time I can think of capitalism invading is the current iraqi conflict and that wasnt our main goal in the first place but an unforeseen benefit of the outcome.
They are socialists..which is not the same thing. Did they strive to get rid of capitalism? No.
I could have sworn the news said they voted the communists into power … specifically communists not socialists.
Just as it can be argued, we have not experienced true capitalism since the inception of our central bank, the federal reserve.
In fact, no extreme ideal has ever been inacted as far as I can tell….save theocracy.
Even in “evil” communist china they have free markets, are seeing massive growth, yet still keep a tyrannical one party rule over social and political matters. Just freakin’ odd.
Reg: They’ve bled us white, the bastards. They’ve taken everything we had, not just from us, from our fathers and from our fathers’ fathers.
-
Stan: And from our fathers’ fathers’ fathers.
-
Reg: Yes.
-
Stan: And from our fathers’ fathers’ fathers’ fathers.
-
Reg: All right, Stan. Don’t labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?
-
Xerxes: The aqueduct.
-
Reg: Oh yeah, yeah they gave us that. Yeah. That’s true.
-
Masked Activist: And the sanitation!
-
Stan: Oh yes… sanitation, Reg, you remember what the city used to be like.
-
Reg: All right, I’ll grant you that the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done…
-
Matthias: And the roads…
-
Reg: (sharply) Well yes obviously the roads… the roads go without saying. But apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation and the roads…
-
Another Masked Activist: Irrigation…
-
Other Masked Voices: Medicine… Education… Health…
-
Reg: Yes… all right, fair enough…
-
Activist Near Front: And the wine…
-
Omnes: Oh yes! True!
-
Francis: Yeah. That’s something we’d really miss if the Romans left,
Reg.
-
Masked Activist at Back: Public baths!
-
Stan: And it’s safe to walk in the streets at night now.
-
Francis: Yes, they certainly know how to keep order… (general nodding)… let’s face it, they’re the only ones who could in a place like this.
-
(more general murmurs of agreement)
-
Reg: All right… all right… but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order… what have the Romans done for us?
-
Xerxes: Brought peace!
-
Reg: (very angry, he’s not having a good meeting at all) What!? Oh… (scornfully) Peace, yes… shut up!
Win.
The Romans also slaughtered thousands in the process of spreading their civilisation. Fail.
dont forget went mad drinking water from lead pipes.
And we didn’t?
oh and they stationed garrisons in every city that they conquered so that the roman army could quash any rebellion. So yeah not so much peace as tyranny under the guise of peace. well I guess peace as long as you enjoyed being ruled from thousands of miles away and didnt start any trouble.
And slavery, ramapant imperialism, use of force to sqaush free speech and forced religion.
The question becomes this…do you prefer to be free or do you prefer to be safe? Do you prefer the state, or do you prefer Liberty?
I prefer balance! I think it’s silly to see this in black or white. The pro-government liberalism is just as silly as this anti tax, anti government talk.
“The Government” > Bernie Madoff? Seriously?
50,000,000,000.00 < 3,600,000,000,000.00
so yes
The government tends to provide social services like in my first post from MP. Madoff ACTUALLY stole something. Notice the subtle difference between fraud and providing services to the public. I could understand your comment if Madoff took the money he “made” and opened up his own private fire hall or police department in accordance with the people he got the cash from. Me, I like paying taxes because I like society, as flawed as it is.
when a government provides a service for you that you can do yourself the cost is always higher than if you did it yourself. So if you want to keep paying taxes to a federal government for a flawed system so that the government can provide you with things in your mind that you need go ahead. Those of us who actually pay attention realize that government … the federal government, has gotten too big and its writing checks we cant cash under the guise of helping us.
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” – Thomas Jefferson
No its not always so. American pay way too much for their private healthcare system compared to say Europe. This is because you have another money grabber in the mix, called the insurance companies.
Completely unneeded. Profit goes before access for instance. If you’re not profitable you’re likely not covered by the “insurance”.
How deeply immoral.
You have to add, “litigious socirty” to this mix as well. Another issue is that the fed regulates the pharm industry to no end…it take anywhere from 40 mil to 100 mil to get a pill to market nowadays due to restrictions by the FDA and states are not allowed to negotiate prices. A pill that is in use in Germany for 10 years may still be 2 years away from seeing market in the US.
add this kind of problem to EVERYTHING in the med profession and that’s why our healthcare is so expensive. There is no such thing as a “ma and pa” pharm company because no one without 200 to 400 mil dollars can afford to start one up. hence, there’s not enough competition.
actually we could fix the entire health care system in about 10 minutes. Currently people expect the first dollar of their health care to be covered (well most of them). If we went back to a system of actual insurance where you paid everything out of pocket up till a certain deductible that you chose (just like your car insurance) and let people deduct their insurance payments from their taxes we would see much lower insurance rates, much lower health care costs and a lot more people having insurance.
“when a government provides a service for you that you can do yourself the cost is always higher than if you did it yourself.”
Patently untrue. How about you go and try to figure out how to run an interstate highway system or the Post Office any cheaper than it is now? And yes, I know the PO is partly private.
There are more people than madoff.. he is one of the few only getting caught.
The wealthy have a lot of influence through lobbyists in DC for instance. And both parties bend over.
Dear conservatives: taxation is not theft. Yes I realize that it is unpleasant to have to give up some of your money, but that is the price of a functioning society. You want to stop paying taxes? Go to some place like Somalia. You won’t have to pay taxes there, though you also won’t have roads, police, water, electricity, defense, and any number of things for which the government either pays directly with your taxes or set up with the money from your taxes.
The U.S. GDP is so powerful you could focus is in the general direction of the moon and blow it into little microscopic bits, John.
The government doesn’t need much taxes. That’s only true in smaller countries like somalia. Yes it’s pretty convenient to use a country like that as an example, but it’s no where near the economic strength of the US not including taxes.
Rich people don’t NEED the government, although they certainly like having it in their pocket. For them, abolishing government is not equivalent to moving to Somalia. They could easily start their own system in which they pay for safety and insurances and not much more.
Sadly, they can’t defer their SS payments once they hit retirement age even if they want to
“Rich people don’t NEED the government, although they certainly like having it in their pocket.”
Precisely. Which is why it confuses me when people aim all of their fury at giant corporations, who without government’s back-scratching monopoly, couldn’t be nearly as exploitative.
Dear john (oh how appropriate),
We dont mind paying taxes on things like the military and paying of the national debt. Its the social programs stupid. They make up more than 85% of the entire budget and obama just threw another 641 billion onto the fire with a “down payment” on socialized medicine. Please go read the constitution before you try to tell us how to live.
Cite, please. The Pentagon and the defense contractors and Iraq and Afghanistan vs. AFDC and Head Start? Yeah, I’m thinking you’re prevaricating rather a lot.
This is so true
scary isn’t it?
Am I really the first person to point out that this doesn’t quite work as a pie graph? Perhaps it would if it was “Amount of Money Stolen by People” or something, it would work.
As-is, identity thieves steal some of the most money, people who “forgot to pay you back” don’t steal very much of the most money, and the government steals most of the most money.
damn government and their “education” “health” and “sidewalks”
Yeah, and their pork-barreling, high salaries, and extensive paid vacations.
Damn the government and their welfare, social security, and medicare…. yeah see you contingently left those out so I added them for you. Your welcome.
Plus the concept of a republic is a small federal government binding states together. Those states then take care of their own needs… like education and health and sidewalks and roads and bridges and sanitation….
You are confusing municipal government with federal government. Theres nothing in the constitution about the government providing for any of the things you mentioned. You might realize that if youd read the thing before.
conveniently not contingently, damned astigmatism
I suppose those taxy thingies in each state aren’t ‘government’ either. Nice understanding the you’re and your by the way. Arrogant smilie face here:
well I was referring to the federal government but if you want to be picky I can be picky. The states are supposed to run themselves and in accordance with their state constitution. The federal government is limited to the federal constitution. so take your arrogant self serving sycophant smilie and shove it.
Mia I don’t think you realize what your tax dollars are going to. You might as well send it all to a Cash for Gold scam.
Again, welfare is a tiny, tiny, tiny scintilla of the amount given to giant corporations, defense contractors, oil companies, tax breaks for big pharma, on and on and on. And SSI and Medicare are paid for separately. Please try to live in the same mathematical universe as the rest of us.
i’m wondering if i’ll have to pay taxes this year if i can’t find a job…
yes … you will have to pay taxes on any unemployment compensation you receive. Plus you pay sales tax, gas tax, possibly school taxes and property taxes regardless of your employment situation. all of that money goes into the general fund and gets divvied up by people who dont care that you’re unemployed.
well i’m not getting unemployment. so i guess that’s a ‘not more than i’ve already paid’
Not income tax, but there are still all sorts of other taxes, like sales & gas that you will be paying throughout the year.
And you have my deepest sympathies about being out of work.
Limited taxation is not theft, provided I benefit from the taxes taken from me. I have no problem with taxes. The problem I have is the vast majority of the taxes taken from me go to the federal government. I think we all agree that the Police, Military, and Roads directly benefit everyone. But the Federal Government was not designed to micromanage all our lives. Why even have States? Why even have City Councils? They were all put in place for a reason, and I believe that reason is a good one. Give the people more direct control over their own lives. Right now, if I don’t like MNCare (and I don’t), I can move out of Minnesota and stop paying for it (were it not for family, I would have already. Soon it will be too much, though). However, if I do not like nationalized health care, I won’t really have a choice, will I. The idea of small local governments is to allow good ideas to flourish, and bad ideas to fail. Voting with your feet and getting the heck out of Dodge (and taking your revenue stream with you), is the most effective method of voting (see New York, and its exodus of top earners). When you have such an overreaching Federal Government, a society becomes so awash in “effect”, that no one can pinpoint the “cause”, or do anything about it.
Remember what caused the Revolutionary War? It was taxation without representation. We now have exactly the opposite, which is representation without taxation. The productive members of society are actually subsidizing the vote of those who pay no taxes, or receive welfare, which perpetuates big government. Most people who vote for the big government candidate, do so in order to get a raise, more welfare, or other such handout that they did not earn.
A note to all liberals:
We had great education before the government gave us any.
We had great health care before the government gave us any.
We had electricity/heat/water before the government gave us any.
We were fine (many would say better off) without government intervention in all these aspects.
Also, every untampered (by government) recession in known history had a maximum lifespan of approximately 2 years. Nearly every recession in known history labeled a “crisis” by the government, where massive spending and reorganization were tantamount, had a minimum lifespan of 2 years. Just something to think about.
Having your own best interests in mind is not greed. I will succeed best when everyone succeeds, and government seems bent on everyone failing. Wealth in this country is not a constant. People who are productive and earn money create wealth, not steal it.
you sir, are a gentleman and a scholar and I salute you.
I should clarify something:
“…and government seems bent on everyone failing. ”
I am referring to our US government specifically, and what is now the prominent European government model in general.
“A note to all liberals:
We had great education before the government gave us any.
We had great health care before the government gave us any.
We had electricity/heat/water before the government gave us any.
We were fine (many would say better off) without government intervention in all these aspects.”
Please note that these “services” applied only to those who were privileged enough to afford them.
Really? You mean so there were rewards for being productive? I thought even lazy people deserved everything!!
Seriously, though, equal opportunity will never mean equal outcome. We are all equal, but we are not all the same. I want to be able to earn great things for me and mine, instead of being forced to pay for mediocre things for those who contribute nothing.
I believe every person, regardless of income, deserves a chance to go to school. I guess I’m a fan of public education. Imagine the divide in class if only those who had enough surplus income could get an education. The social problems would be outrageous. We all benefit from educating the disadvantaged. I wish you and yours the best, but I also wish the best for the lazy non-contributors.
Yes, everyone deserves the chance to go to school. Eliminating government subsidized schooling will not deprive them of this privilege. Getting rid of public school i believe would bolster the market for good education. There is already a large market, because many people already distrust public education, and with good reason, IMO. What if I don’t want my kids to see Al Gore’s “documentary”? What if I think the Theory of Evolution is false? What if I take responsibility (gasp) for teaching my kids about abstinence before marriage? I don’t believe it is moral to force me to pay for any of that, be it for my own kids, or especially for someone else’s kids. Sure, everyone benefits from an educated populace, but it is not the federal government’s responsibility to do so. If a city or town got together to vote on and establish a public school for their district, more power to them. That way, if I don’t want to participate (and I think you would find this the case with many people when it came down to brass tacks) I could simply live elsewhere. That way I have neither the burden, nor the benefit from such a system. It would be at that point that you would be able to see the true value in such a thing, and I believe many folks would be surprised at the outcome. Unfortunately, once the federal government subsidizes anything, the ability to measure its effect on society evaporates, and we all end up paying, whether we agree with it or not. That, I believe, is immoral.
Equal opportunity does not guarantee equal outcome
I don’t think you understand how poverty works.
I don’t think you understand that if you have the right to suceed, then you also have the right to fail. You only get out of life what you put into it. even in the greatest of civilizations there have always been criminals and the homeless. Your way takes from those that choose to succeed and give to those that fail. You are stealing. Someday, me and mine may just “catch” you. You won’t like.
So, you are happy living in a society that cannot provide enough jobs for everyone? You are also happy with the idea that a portion of humanity will fall into chaos? You’re perfectly fine sitting back and watching a family starve to death because there aren’t enough jobs to support everyone? It is an undeniable fact that not everyone can succeed. Even if every last American chose to succeed, there would not be enough jobs to support them. You don’t see a problem with this? For me, its an issue of human decency. I suppose one like yourself could argue that IF you saw such poverty and destitution you could do something about it motivated by your own compassion, free from government goading. But gated communities and turning a blind eye to the problem seems to be the way to go. Not everyone can succeed. Now I’m rambling, but also take into account the stagnant minimum wage in contrast to rising housing prices. Some day that’s going to blow up on us too.
oh, also, I don’t get the threat at the end of your post.
its not societies job to provide you with jobs. There has always been a poor people and there will always be a poor people. If a person starves to death in america then really have to try pretty hard. All they need to do to get food is hang out on any street corner and say that they are homeless and hungry and they can make up to 50 bucks an hour if the corner is busy enough. Thats also tax free too.
” I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.”
– Benjamin Franklin
“Eliminating government subsidized schooling will not deprive them of this privilege.”
You don’t think there’s going to be some cost-benefit analysis going on there not unlike the insurance companies, who strangely seem to feel a heart procedure for a poor person is less beneficial than it is for an identical rich person?
One of those kids schooling that your taxes pay for could one day become your doctor. Its in our interest to have everyone educated..
If they’re excluded, chances are high that they will be turn to criminality instead and that too will cost taxpayers money…
I would like to see the ratio of criminals that had attended public schools vs. criminals that had attended private schools per student capita. Anyone know where to find this?
You see, it typically costs far more per pupil at a public school. Up to $14,000 per pupil here in MN, whereas average private school is usually a couple thousand. That is a lot of money spent to “maybe” benefit everyone, and a lot of money sucked out of the economy that could be spent on better education.
I will advocate personal responsibility over compulsory pooling in almost every case. If I fail, I only have myself to blame. If you fail, it didn’t cost me anything.
That’s a devastating statistic on MN school cost. Have a source?
OK, so I have tried to post the site twice here, and it seems to have been moderated into oblivion. Anyway, you should be able to Google “Cost of Adequacy in Education Minnesota”. It is a report by the Minnesota Center for Public Finance Research.
Or, let’s look at Canada’s system, where the majority of kids go to publicly funded schools. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. Our schools are great. We have some private schools, yes. They offer a slightly more intense education system. But in the end, it hardly makes a difference. We don’t care how poor you are, you can attend a good school if you want to. And it works. Now we’re working on free University education as well, and that would be a HUGE boost to our country. If you don’t accept the scientifically accepted theories taught in public schools, then you CAN home school your kids. Not that I’d recommend it if you’re dumb enough to deny what science tells us is true. Your poor kids…
This is what I mean by public schools teaching you what to think, not how to think.
thats very well put. its indoctrination at its finest in public schools and most colleges.
Also, I think my “poor kids” will do just fine. I was homeschooled for most of my school years, I believe in God, and I think Global Warming is bunk science. Despite all that, I score a 98 on the ASVAB. In fact, of the dozen or so home schoolers and private school attendees I know to have taken that test, none of them scored below an 80.
These were not “rewards for being productive.” Lots and lots of people were “productive” but since they were either actual slaves or “the working class,” they didn’t get *jack* for their labor except eating stale bread, drinking filthy water and living in filthy shacks. Then labor unions and Democrats came long and put an end to that. Except they didn’t, of course.
Besides, good things belong to the ruling class, right Mr. Machiavelli?
“The government which governs least governs best” – Benjamin Franklin
“I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit.”
- President Grover Cleveland
“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.”
– Thomas Jefferson
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
–Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817
“the true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best . . . (for) when all government . . . shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as . . . oppressive as the government from which we separated.”
–Thomas Jefferson
“You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; right derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.”
– John Adams
“If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that, if it is comfort or money it values more, it will lose that too.”
– William Somerset Maughan, 1941
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”
– James Madison
“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”
– Thomas Jefferson
“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, 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.”
– Thomas Jefferson
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.”
– Thomas Jefferson
That we will, at all times hereafter, consider ourselves as a free and independent state, capable of regulating our internal police, in all and every respect whatsoever — and that the people on said Grants have the sole and exclusive and inherent right of ruling and governing themselves in such manner and form as in their own wisdom they shall think proper…
– Vermont Declaration of Independence, January 15, 1777
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”
– Thomas Jefferson
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.”
– Thomas Paine
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
– Benjamin Franklin
“Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.”
– Representative Robert Goodloe Harper, Address, June 18, 1798 (Harper was the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means)
“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.”
– Thomas Paine
“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
“Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”
– Thomas Sowell
“The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.”
– Herbert Spencer
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. ”
– Winston Churchill
An excellent collection of quotes.
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
–Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.”
– Thomas Jefferson
These facts seem to be the most profoundly forgotten of them all, especially by congress.
yes its a sad thing that congress forgets its limitations. I think its time we reminded them of it by voting them all out of office.
By replacing dems with republicans and the other way around?
Exactly. That’s the problem with a two party system. Wish I could find a clip, but The Simpsons Treehouse of Horrors VII, Citizen Kang, sums this up quite well after kang and Kodos are revealed to be aliens and NOT Dole and Clinton.
Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They’re nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them]
[audience gasps in terror]
-
Kodos: It’s true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It’s a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
[murmurs]
-
Man1: He’s right, this is a two-party system.
-
Man2: Well, I believe I’ll vote for a third-party candidate.
-
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
[Ross Perot smashes his "Perot 96" hat]
by replacing big government representatives with small government representatives irregardless of party.
fyi “irregardless” is not a word
I say vote em all out. I don’t care if you replace them with newbies from the same party. I bet if everyone in Congress lived in fear that it was only a single term we’d either get some of the best legislators (in terms of truly representing what their constituents want) or the worst (in terms of doing as much damage on their way out as possible) until we started getting a higher class of elected official.
Wouldn’t quote Churchill. He was an imperialist who said that terrorism is a good way of putting people in line. Was not a fan of Gandhi either..
Good during WWII though..
Word.
I think that socal programs like wealfare and socal sucuraty need to be there but better managed and that we need to have fewer of them
Well see the problem with those programs is they create dependence on the government and in the case of SS its an average of 13,000/yr. Whenever you tell people that they say well SS isnt supposed to be your only source of retirement funds. Ok well if it isnt then we dont need it to begin with. But as soon as you try to take it away from the government and make it a private entity those on the left cry foul. Plus SS is more than 20% of the 3.6 trillion dollar budget… thats a good place to start cutting IMHO.
The system is currently designed specifically NOT to “create dependence.” You cannot stay on welfare for more than a few years; after that, you either get a job or hope there’s a church that will take you in. You can thank President Clinton for that incidentally.
“Whenever you tell people that they say well SS isnt supposed to be your only source of retirement funds. Ok well if it isnt then we dont need it to begin with.”
And that is the most ridiculous bit of illogic I have ever heard in my life.
Tires aren’t the only thing a car needs. Well if they’re not then we don’t need them to begin with. Boy, you’re just SPECIAL.
what about the church?
I wish the church wasn’t so religious…
It’s not the fact that they are “Stealing money” Its that they steal money and then go waste it. I really wish i could give you some examples but i can’t remember their names.
You’re right Zac. its the spending that a lot of americans are pissed about. we wouldnt have so many taxes and we wouldnt have businesses leaving the country left and right if the taxes were lower. We dont produce too much here anymore except cars and the american auto worker is about to be out of a job. Now the japanese auto worker who works on american soil and cant unionize and doesnt get paid health care after they are fired, they are fine and business is increasing.
More like “The Wealthy” steal all the money.
when’s the last time a wealthy person robbed you?
The last time they launched a warship or fired a missile, according to Eisenhower.
the military are part of the constitution and while it might be an extreme amount of money they spend its nothing compared to the social programs in the federal budget. Go look at the wiki yourself if you dont believe me.
And again, defense spending is hundreds and hundreds of times more than spending on “social programs.” Unless you think education is a “social program,” and even then, no, sorry, no.
That was the last time I bought a text book that was printed for $10 and sold for $250, and was mandatory for the course.
Or when I pay my cell phone bill. Which costs them a few bucks a month to run.
Or Madoff.
Need I continue?
you chose to take that degree program, you chose to own a cellphone and if you invested with madoff well then caveat emptor. When a business provides a service in a capitalist economy you have a choice to go with that company or another one … unless youre talking about cable tv which is a monopoly in what ever area they are in. But even then they are still providing a service so you get something for your money. If you dont like the money you dont have to spend it. I finished college with a degree in software engineering and I had to pay for all of my books and I didnt open one of them. Do I complain? no. Because I realize thats part of the price of going to school and if I dont like it I can change majors, not buy the book and tough it out (or borrow it from a classmate), or you can always drop out too. You always have a choice.
Until we get subsidized everything. Then we won’t have a choice. We pay for things that may or may not benefit us, whether we want to or not.
And then by your very own definition above, you then have the choice to not succeed. Because, need I mention this, you weren’t rich. Rich people don’t have to make decisions like that. If you’re broke, it’s different.
Not that I expect you to actually understand this.
No textbook costs $10 to print. They probably cost $2-3 per copy to print and yup, $250 outa your broke-*ss student wallet. Robbery.
And when was the last time a poor person employed you?
The last time a poor person employed me was when a poor person bought something, anywhere.
what kind of job do you have? advertising? marketing? truck driving? because thats a rather sweeping statement to say that anyone anywhere keeps you employed.
It fits with market theory. There is a demand for workers because there is a demand for products. No demand for products, no demand for workers. To use the absurd example, this is why I haven’t been hired to take naps, because there is no market for products produced by taking naps
This. Everyone buys stuff and in fact since there are more of them the poor and middle class support the economy more. It has been unequivocally proven that giving giant tax breaks to the insanely rich does not create jobs. Doesn’t. Create. Jobs.
Pfft, it’s not stealing when then *government* does it!
(Actually, I’m not joking. That’s one of the ways to of defining government – the *legitimate* use of coersion to get people to do things like pay taxes. If it couldn’t do that, it wouldn’t be a government. So, I guess what I’m saying is – ANARCHIST!)
youre right. Its also like the golden rule… he who has all the gold makes all the rules. If your congress sees fit to vote on a new law taxing something so that they can pay for a new program they started to provide you with a service you already have do you not see the problem with that system?
Um… Money is made by the government… They can’t really “steal” it…
money is made in the physical sense of the word but just to have a standard currency. they dont produce any product to sell to their people or other countries. They collect taxes and donations for their primary source of income. Income which they then spend on programs to help the citizens that live in their country and other countries.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. – Thomas Jefferson
Nothing you just said had anything to do with what I just said.
Because you are too retarded to understand that it does.
oh damn lol I didnt see that response coming. I think he er she … they read it too fast and skipped to the middle of the first paragraph.
I think you forgot contractors. It’s hard to find one who doesn’t steal your money. There are countless stories of people who pay a contractor all the money up front. Then the guy disappears, taking the money with him and leaving the job half-finished.
Lol
I saw a bumper sticker that said
“Don’t steal. The Government doesn’t like competition.”
Yes, I love this graph!
I too hate:
Roads
Parks
Public defenders
Judges
Policeman
Fireman
the military
Public schools
Public Universities
The Mailman!
Snow plows
Trash service
Recycling
Unemployment
Medicaid
Stop signs
Hospitals
Paramedic
They guy that picks up the trash on the streets downtown
Buses
Trains
Railroad
The FDA
Unemployment? But unemployment is a good thing! And oh, the military!
No no no! All of those should be privatized because in a competitive system, the consumer can control the cost-effectiveness and quality a lot more without the Washington fat cats taking their share.
Oh wait, that’s presuming that you have money. Hmmm, with 7% (or whatever) unemployment, that means 7% of society could afford zero of these services, so if their house caught on fire, it should be allowed to burn to the ground. Their children should not be allowed to go to school, not even to mention what would happen if they got sick. We would effectively have a out-caste class in our society. No theories of “tax-free government” that I have ever heard of were able to account for the poor. Well, other than mass executions. With no social safety net, you essentially damn people and take away their hope.
I think I would rather live next door to a good-for-nothing welfare free-loader than a desperate man who was entirely out of options and needed to feed his family.
son, if there’s 7% unemployment it does not mean that 7% of the population is uneployed. Go do some research, come back, tell us what you’ve learned.
But his point still holds.
No it doesn’t. It coems down to this: Do you want free healthcare or affordable healthcare? In a nation that practices actual deregulation of the market (not banks and insurance comapnies) jobs are so dang plentiful you’re only unemployed if you want to be,
Unemployment rate does not equal the percent of people without jobs? Some unemployed people actually have jobs then? Then why are they called unemployed? I’m sure lots of folks are “between stuff” right now, but the way things have been going, it’s more than just seasonal fluctuation.
Oh, the point was that as soon as a person hits rock bottom, they are essentially a Dalit from the Indian Class system. In other words, with nothing to fall back on, without a safety net, they’re doomed. No residence, no money, no clean clothes. At least drugs are still illegal so he can start selling them to your kids.
Completely lame graph.
I get it, It’s a joke.. people take jokes too seriously now a days…I bet if you had used Bankers instead of The government, everyone would be agreeing with you.
uh… nope.
I love papa Johns pizza :drool:
uh yup
I wonder how the amount the government “steals” in taxes compares to the amount those waiters “steal” by bringing you a bill after you’ve eaten food and been waited on.
Well, then, I am paying $50 plus gratuity for a can of tuna.
the closer to th truth the joke is, the more offended people get.
oh, and this state IS stealing my money to pay for their fancy hotels and goodies
do you really live in caulefornea? Im surprised anyone is left in that state outside of L.A., hollywood, and San Francisco.
I like how everyone is preaching the virtue of taxes to help those who can’t help themselves, yet don’t care at all about Obama’s great work convincing people not to give to the poor by making it so they can’t tax deduct donations to charity.
Nice logic there, GraphJam.
Obama did away with charitable donation deductions? You’d think that would have been on the news.
he actually didnt do away with them he cut them by quite a bit. Oh and I just got off the phone about 20 min ago with the IRS. This 400 dollar per year tax cut isnt a tax cut. its a with holding adjustment where the government takes 13 dollars less per week out of your check. Then come april 15th 2010 you are going to owe them the same amount you did this year (assuming you made the same amount of course).
EPIC WIN.
Agreed.
In America we pay them to fly first class from thier state to DC
its about the same here. they had a special on about a congresswoman from florida whose house was foreclosed on in her home district because she was living in washington dc constantly. Our representatives get 90% of their pay (house pay is like 75k usd for your rank and file members and about 125k for the speaker) and full healthcare and a pension after 1 term in congress.
Oh and the current speaker of the house demanded her own private jet to fly back home on because shes from california and its on the other side of the country. And she got it too.
Yeah, and she is also signed on to this whole Global Warming nonsense. But I guess the Washington elite are exempt from having to personally abide by their own crazy standards.
global warming isn’t nonsense, people just don’t realize that there’s more to it than just an increase in temperature or a higher water level. You also have more acidic water from CO2 mixing with water to form carbonic acid, which increases the ocean’s pH, which in turn affects the fish, reefs, and other organisms that live there or depend on water.
To say nothing of how we’re going to figure out how to grow food when the climate shifts significantly enough.
Definitely made by someone who’s never had their identity stolen.
You know what the graph maker left off? Ex-girlfriends.
Awesome! And unemployed deadbeat brother-in-laws! That deserved about 5% of my pie graph two years ago.
why is government the red block?
should be black ppl
Comment fail
Not cool.
exactly… highly uneducated people such as our friend ‘andy duru’ is exactly how the US gets into nice dirty terrible comment lines like these. pure ignorance and lack of taste.
to all of you tea baggers… go to texas and secede from the union… we could use a more filibuster proof government skewed towards democrats.
Well, baka, I wouldn’t be so quick to say andy duru is uneducated. I personally know a few highly educated racists (some of which work for the government, mind you). Education only helps you become smart. It doesn’t necessarily keep you from being stupid.
Also, as a “tea bagger” and a business owner, moving to Texas is becoming an increasingly attractive option. And Minnesota would be sorry to see my revenue stream leaving. Then, I’ll be thinking of you, baka, when gas station lines in San Fransisco, food lines in New York, and riot crowds in Washington are all plainly visible from Guadalupe Peak. It won’t be tomorrow, but the great U.S. of A. is now running at a full sprint toward this reality (see: Lifespan of a Democracy). Someday, even the United Counties of Texas will likely mete out this same fate, as every country does, but by the time that has happened, I hope to have made my mark in this world, and departed from it.
Dude. Go “Galt,” be my guest, see what the hell it’s like to live on $45K plus or minus instead of whatever it is you make. Get back to me in five years and let me know how you like it.
I would be happy to make $45k a year. In fact, if my customers weren’t taxed to the point they are, I might be able to do just that. My business it 3 years old, and has barely afforded me a dime, though that is not uncommon in the first 5 to 10 years of a businesses lifespan. I know how to live frugally, and that is why I was comfortable taking the risk of starting my own business. Unfortunately, as mentioned above, moving to a state where doing business doesn’t cost a ton, and where I can expect customers that are able to afford better things (by way of fewer taxes), is very tempting. I personally don’t end up paying much in taxes, but my customers do. Taxes do not stimulate the economy. Ever. Also, higher taxes don’t even increase revenue to the government. If you look back over the years, you will see that when taxes are raised, governmental revenue decreases, inflation occurs, and the economy declines. The opposite is also true. It’s like clockwork. Right now, we are seeing the single largest spending increase ever known to this country, right in the midst of a terrible recession. Taxes will be raised and our economy will continue to fail. Rational people will not be convinced otherwise. I urge you to file these thoughts away. I know you will not be dissuaded from your current opinion right now, but in ten years, look back at what is happening now, and ask yourself if things really got better. Personally, I am rooting for the American economy. I want the economy to succeed. In order for that to happen, though, the government is going to have to get the hell out of our pocketbooks. Right now, I would be in a much better place financially, as would everyone else with a bit of gumption, if the government would stop making us pay for so much irresponsibility.
And BTW, forge, I don’t know what it is you do for a living, but I am guessing its a teaching position at a public school or some other place that gets its payroll underwritten by Uncle Sam. $45K used to be a lot of money, and now its not. Hard work used to be rewarding, and now its not. Connect the dots.
I am SO NOT subsidized by the government. Please stop assuming.
Cutting taxes from the Eisenhower era’s 90% bracket: good idea
Cutting taxes from the Carter era’s 39% bracket: really bad idea
Yes, revenues went up when we stopped taxing people 9/10ths of their income. And they went right back down again when Reagan got into office and started giving money to the uber-rich so they could take it out of circulation and put it in offshore bank accounts. Not to mention use the extra cash to move jobs offshore.
Some questions for liberals and conservatives alike:
At what point along the path from 0% government intervention to 100% government control over all industries and citizenry would you consider to be the healthy balance? What is the goal of bigger or smaller government? Do you believe there will come a time when we all say “We’ve got it! Everything’s perfect! We’ve defined the perfect amount of control and the perfect budget!” If so, let’s hear it. I believe describing an ultimate goal is a much more finite and worthy discussion than rehashing our current and obviously flawed sociopolitical condition.
I’d say a 20/80 ratio of involvement/free market would be my ideal. The crucial part of that ratio would be in defining which 20% were the correct things for the government to step in on.
I’m sure we can all agree on murder and rape and robbery for a start. And defrauding (since it’s a form of robbery) for a second level start…but from there, that’s where it gets tricky.
Come to think of it, CEOs should be on here. None of them work even remotely hard enough to “earn” their obscene salaries; it’s all about taking everything they can from their subordinates’ work.
So is it possible work hard enough to make 7-digit salaries? Should there be a salary cap for everyone? Are you sure you know exactly what a CEO does?
Working to make 7-digit salaries?
Maybe if someone is impossible to replace because he is so talented and does such an important job that, if he quit, many lives would be ruined forever. Or maybe someone efficient enough to work 1200 man-hours a day.
Sounds like jealousy to me.
I’m not jealous, I don’t want or need that much money. If I received that much, I would just donate 90% of it… I couldn’t justify keeping it all for myself.
I suppose then where you and I may disagree would be, who then is more effective with that money. I believe you, that you would donate most of it, but then you would be able to donate it to causes you believe in. What little money I am able to donate year to year goes to organizations that use it effectively. What money that is taxed from me, goes to organizations that I wholeheartedly disagree with, such as the National Endowment for the Arts, or to a welfare state that enables a self-perpetuating welfare mentality. We all have a vested interest in our communities, whether we are business owners or grunts at the bottom of the food chain. Our money is best spent and donated by us. That keeps everyone accountable, and ensures the organizations vying for your money have to do a good job. Not just a good job lobbying.
Stolen, huh? I guess the government doesn’t give you roads, transportation, a financial safety net, and free education up to grade 12.
I suppose then if a thief took your wallet and gave you a movie ticket to a crappy movie, he’d be perfectly justified.
It’s only a crappy movie because it’s been edited all to hell by a bunch of idiots who couldn’t cut a movie to save their lives.
And all the while you have rather nice public housing for some of your retired military people. Why not put MPs up in similar housing when they’re at Parliament? Then they’d only be maintaining one house. Not sure how we handle that with our Congresspeople but I suspect they do much the same. Some (former presidential candidate John McCain for example) have half a dozen or more houses, no idea how much he gets to deduct though.
You forgot “your own bank” or is that represented by the white background encompassing all the others?
I don’t doubt the Pie Chart…. But You forgot ex-wifes and old lovers …..LOL
That’s the cost of society, douchebag. It maintains services vital for a modern society. That’s why you enjoy clean water, public education, free of charge university education, fire department, the police, universal healthcare…