http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/05/07/ ... r-tax.html

Its still being talked about but with the Republicans controlling everything it will mostly likely get passed.

appdaze wrote:http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/05/07/ ... r-tax.html

Its still being talked about but with the Republicans controlling everything it will mostly likely get passed.

They should just cut the crap and say that they don't want the rich to pay taxes and move on. Now let's watch who the money pours in from next time they seek re-election.

"It shifts the tax burden to consumption rather than income, a move that will disproportionately affect low-income taxpayers and families. A married couple with two children making $30,000 a year would pay an estimated $1,000 more in taxes each year, according to a calculator on a political website designed to support the plan. By contrast, a single taxpayer making $200,000 would get a $6,000 break."

Well, that sucks audibly.

So at what point should citizens pay for the government they use? Don't get me started on who pays the dues in this country. Just look at the stats. We have about half of the country who are net takers, and half that are net payers. The average household with a head-of-household without a high school diploma is a net consumer of government services of over $31,000/annual.

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... s-taxpayer

If I may, at what point do we require citizens to take responsibility for their lives?

Who could argue with a report from someone as unbiased as the Heritage Foundation?

StumpyCulbreath wrote:Who could argue with a report from someone as unbiased as the Heritage Foundation?

Evidently you can't.

HeffnerIV wrote:So at what point should citizens pay for the government they use? Don't get me started on who pays the dues in this country. Just look at the stats. We have about half of the country who are net takers, and half that are net payers. The average household with a head-of-household without a high school diploma is a net consumer of government services of over $31,000/annual.

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... s-taxpayer

If I may, at what point do we require citizens to take responsibility for their lives?

Did you go to ASU?

McLeansvilleAppFan wrote:

HeffnerIV wrote:So at what point should citizens pay for the government they use? Don't get me started on who pays the dues in this country. Just look at the stats. We have about half of the country who are net takers, and half that are net payers. The average household with a head-of-household without a high school diploma is a net consumer of government services of over $31,000/annual.

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... s-taxpayer

If I may, at what point do we require citizens to take responsibility for their lives?

Did you go to ASU?

Yes, I had a subsidized education. I'm also a net payer just as my parents were/are, as I'm sure you are.

HeffnerIV wrote:

McLeansvilleAppFan wrote:

HeffnerIV wrote:So at what point should citizens pay for the government they use? Don't get me started on who pays the dues in this country. Just look at the stats. We have about half of the country who are net takers, and half that are net payers. The average household with a head-of-household without a high school diploma is a net consumer of government services of over $31,000/annual.

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... s-taxpayer

If I may, at what point do we require citizens to take responsibility for their lives?

Did you go to ASU?

Yes, I had a subsidized education. I'm also a net payer just as my parents were/are, as I'm sure you are.

So as long as the subsidies help you personally then it is a non issue? How do you define net payer?

What do you consider you get from state government. What you pay is easy to figure or somewhat easy? But what do you have for receiving. I want to make sure you have not forgotten anything.

McLeansvilleAppFan wrote:

HeffnerIV wrote:

McLeansvilleAppFan wrote:

HeffnerIV wrote:So at what point should citizens pay for the government they use? Don't get me started on who pays the dues in this country. Just look at the stats. We have about half of the country who are net takers, and half that are net payers. The average household with a head-of-household without a high school diploma is a net consumer of government services of over $31,000/annual.

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... s-taxpayer

If I may, at what point do we require citizens to take responsibility for their lives?

Did you go to ASU?

Yes, I had a subsidized education. I'm also a net payer just as my parents were/are, as I'm sure you are.

So as long as the subsidies help you personally then it is a non issue? How do you define net payer?

What do you consider you get from state government. What you pay is easy to figure or somewhat easy? But what do you have for receiving. I want to make sure you have not forgotten anything.

Actually, as I stated before, I would like for people to pay for the government they get. A net payer is someone who pays for more than they get, as you could've gleaned from the article above.

As expected, you've failed to answer/avoided my original question in favor of demagoguery. So I ask again, at what point do we expect citizens to take responsibility for their own lives (and the lives of their offspring)?

I thought everyone knows that 50% of the population in this country does not use any government services or infrastructure.

Everybody should contribute something.

HeffnerIV wrote:

McLeansvilleAppFan wrote:

HeffnerIV wrote:

McLeansvilleAppFan wrote:

HeffnerIV wrote:So at what point should citizens pay for the government they use? Don't get me started on who pays the dues in this country. Just look at the stats. We have about half of the country who are net takers, and half that are net payers. The average household with a head-of-household without a high school diploma is a net consumer of government services of over $31,000/annual.

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... s-taxpayer

If I may, at what point do we require citizens to take responsibility for their lives?

Did you go to ASU?

Yes, I had a subsidized education. I'm also a net payer just as my parents were/are, as I'm sure you are.

So as long as the subsidies help you personally then it is a non issue? How do you define net payer?

What do you consider you get from state government. What you pay is easy to figure or somewhat easy? But what do you have for receiving. I want to make sure you have not forgotten anything.

Actually, as I stated before, I would like for people to pay for the government they get. A net payer is someone who pays for more than they get, as you could've gleaned from the article above.

As expected, you've failed to answer/avoided my original question in favor of demagoguery. So I ask again, at what point do we expect citizens to take responsibility for their own lives (and the lives of their offspring)?

I am not convinced you are a net payer. There are a lot of little things you may use that you don't realize. Does the gas you buy and the tax on it really pay for the total cost of the road and maintenance. Visit public parks? Libraries? Maybe you are a net payer. I think many that think they are may not be a net payer.

To answer your question would take a bit so I am going to do a very abridged version.

I do like having a safety net, even if that means it is abused by some. So I am willing to put up with some that are not taking responsibility for their actions if it means a safety net is there when folks do really need it.

As far as person responsibility, there are ways we can get the gov't from being needed as much. If we had stronger labor unions there would be more money in working peoples hands. That would go a long way in reducing the need for public assistant. There are a lot of working poor- working but still very poor. As it is, some don't want the gov't to help and then the same people don't want ANY power in workers hands, to move money to rank and file employees. What some really want is workers to be fu%^ing slaves and do it with a smile on their face. It is almost like some just expect people to role over and starve to death and or be homeless trying to live off a few dollars an hour. And do it with a smile on their face. That "let them eat cake" mentality never ends well.

This really just off sets the federal tax changes, so net net nothing changes, except now NC may be able to entice companies here to create jobs.

Wait. I remember this part from the Gospels where Jesus said "Screw the poor; screw the hungry; screw the uneducated; screw the ill; and if you help any of them, you're not really helping me because they are lazy and don't deserve my help." And when he comes back, I'm sure he'll be a conservative and he'll donate money to pay part of that 82.4 million that funds those snazzy twenty page reports.

[/quote]

I am not convinced you are a net payer. There are a lot of little things you may use that you don't realize. Does the gas you buy and the tax on it really pay for the total cost of the road and maintenance. Visit public parks? Libraries? Maybe you are a net payer. I think many that think they are may not be a net payer.

To answer your question would take a bit so I am going to do a very abridged version.

I do like having a safety net, even if that means it is abused by some. So I am willing to put up with some that are not taking responsibility for their actions if it means a safety net is there when folks do really need it.

As far as person responsibility, there are ways we can get the gov't from being needed as much. If we had stronger labor unions there would be more money in working peoples hands. That would go a long way in reducing the need for public assistant. There are a lot of working poor- working but still very poor. As it is, some don't want the gov't to help and then the same people don't want ANY power in workers hands, to move money to rank and file employees. What some really want is workers to be fu%^ing slaves and do it with a smile on their face. It is almost like some just expect people to role over and starve to death and or be homeless trying to live off a few dollars an hour. And do it with a smile on their face. That "let them eat cake" mentality never ends well.[/quote]

What's your job? I'm guessing you've never been an employer. If so, you'd have an idea about what employers do to satisfy their employees. I have the unique perspective from both ends and I can assure you, labor unions have far outlived their use and they do very little short of driving jobs to other regions.

For the record, I haven't been to a library in probably 20 years. Parks? Very seldomly. I do use sidewalks occasionally, do you got me there.

HeffnerIV wrote:

I am not convinced you are a net payer. There are a lot of little things you may use that you don't realize. Does the gas you buy and the tax on it really pay for the total cost of the road and maintenance. Visit public parks? Libraries? Maybe you are a net payer. I think many that think they are may not be a net payer.

To answer your question would take a bit so I am going to do a very abridged version.

I do like having a safety net, even if that means it is abused by some. So I am willing to put up with some that are not taking responsibility for their actions if it means a safety net is there when folks do really need it.

As far as person responsibility, there are ways we can get the gov't from being needed as much. If we had stronger labor unions there would be more money in working peoples hands. That would go a long way in reducing the need for public assistant. There are a lot of working poor- working but still very poor. As it is, some don't want the gov't to help and then the same people don't want ANY power in workers hands, to move money to rank and file employees. What some really want is workers to be fu%^ing slaves and do it with a smile on their face. It is almost like some just expect people to role over and starve to death and or be homeless trying to live off a few dollars an hour. And do it with a smile on their face. That "let them eat cake" mentality never ends well.[/quote]

What's your job? I'm guessing you've never been an employer. If so, you'd have an idea about what employers do to satisfy their employees. I have the unique perspective from both ends and I can assure you, labor unions have far outlived their use and they do very little short of driving jobs to other regions.

For the record, I haven't been to a library in probably 20 years. Parks? Very seldomly. I do use sidewalks occasionally, do you got me there.[/quote]

I of course dream of the day when we all have working conditions such as happened in unregulated and uninspected West, TX or the garment factory in Bangladesh. If we can just get wages down enough and throw out the safety requirements we can compete with those jobs and it will be like manna from Heaven. Heck only 800+ have died in the garment factory collapse. I long for the day we are able to compete on even terms by being at their level.

The rolling eye is the closest smiley we have for sarcasm in case it is lost on anyone.

Once again, predictably, you've chosen the absolute worst situations you could find. How about all those business that operate each day union free, who never blow up? I bet my example outnumbers yours!

People have free will to work where they wish, for whomever they wish, for as much money as they agree. They also have the self-responsibility to work in a place that they feel safe. See the common theme here? Self-Responsibility!

I'm not certain of much in this world but I do know when discussing politics neither side will change their opinion.

He's right, of course. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... h-low-iqs/

HeffnerIV wrote:Once again, predictably, you've chosen the absolute worst situations you could find. How about all those business that operate each day union free, who never blow up? I bet my example outnumbers yours!

People have free will to work where they wish, for whomever they wish, for as much money as they agree. They also have the self-responsibility to work in a place that they feel safe. See the common theme here? Self-Responsibility!

What about all the wage theft, injuries that are not the extreme cases, but still injuries. The illegal firings. I could make a pretty long list. Yes, there are employers that are decent, how many and what percentage-I doubt as high as you would think.

Your idea is a nice idea, but to think that all the laws are written to really give all this free will is a bit of a stretch. The laws are written in ways that really keep that from happening, partly because the laws involving workplace are not enforced as they once were. How many employers go to jail for wage theft. It is still theft, but it is hardly enforced. One example of how all this fairness is not really fair and the deck is stacked.