NEW HAMPSHIRE- Feds Want Browns' Huge Weapons Cache

[calsdad]

Bingo. You can spout all your libertarian ideals you want, but the fact remains we as Americans are obligated to pay taxes. I have not and will not debate whether this in itself is right or wrong. Mark, if you feel so strongly about it, as your post suggests, then why do you pay your taxes?

'To pay for bridges to nowhere and more airports for John Murtha?

Yes, exactly amongst other things. And so by me thinking it is important for people to pay their taxes, I am somehow a liberal? I disagree as much as the next guy on this forum about where that money goes, nonetheless, there are things it goes to that are important, such as the rehabilitation of America's infrastructure. I also debate the amount of taxes we pay, we pay too much!...As a result of frivolous spending on welfare, useless programs, etc. But someone has got to pay for the roads and bridges you travel on everyday. Guess not you though...

calsdad, why do you pay taxes? You certainly have the internet fortitude to not. Actions speak louder than words my friend.

Because people like yourself seem to think that "I am obligated to pay taxes" and will send government jackboots to give me a beatdown, confiscate everything I own, and throw my ass in jail. That's why.



You keep saying "obligated" - obligated to whom? Obligated for what exactly? The fact that you won't debate whether this is right or even seemingly acknowledge the massive waste and corruption that the tax burden we are forced to pay makes you an intellectual coward in my opinion, either that or outright ignorant.

You do realize that the John Murtha airport and the bridge to nowhere in Alaska were just two of the most egregious incidents of govt. waste on 'infrastructure' in recent memory - don't you? Yet you claim to not be for "useless programs" "welfare" and "frivolous spending".

Ahh, and once again it rears it's ugly head: the goddamed 'what about the roads' argument again. It always goes back to that - doesn't it? There are so many people who are willing to put up with just about anything with the excuse of "we won't have any roads".

Let's give a quick rundown of all the taxes that are already paid to support infrastructure - before they take even more from income taxes:

gas and diesel taxes
excise taxes
sales taxes on vehicles
sales tax on vehicle parts
railroad taxes
tolls
license fees
money paid on tickets and other infractions
taxes on tires
etc.
etc.

Please explain to me why there should be ANY other taxes that need to go for "infrastructure"? With all of the taxes that are apportioned for direct usage of "infrastructure" there should be NO money taken from income taxes. The fact that there is - just goes to show that the tax structure is a shell game. And the fact that you don't apparently realize this shows that the shell game works - and gets you to argue for increased taxation on property and income to support "infrastructure" - which then enables even more spending on the things you claim to oppose, like welfare, and wasteful spending.

This makes you either ignorant of reality - or a hypocrite in my book.

Let me anticipate the counter argument(s): we have to elect "better" politicians. Ha ha. If that had any hope of working - it would have happened by now. The non-validity of the "better" politician argument is borne out by the very founding of this country. The founding fathers put no stock in that argument - it's why the federal government was designed the way it was - and it's why the feds were supposed to have extremely limited powers.


And why does the government have to be the one to build "infrastructure"? Roads should be paid for out of all the taxes I detailed above. If they aren't - it's because they are not doing it correctly. Railroads (at least the profitable ones) - are for the most part privately owned. Amtrak is a tax sink and has been for decades.

The fact that you blindly argue that we are all "obligated" to pay taxes - while brushing off incidents of corruption and waste makes you just as much a part of the problem as those politicians who waste all the money - because you are making the argument that enables them to keep wasting it.

People like you - who blindly argue for more taxes are a good part of the problem with this country. It is people like YOU who have enabled the government to send trillions of dollars to bail out big banks. It is people like YOU who have enabled the government to raise the tax burden in this country to one that historically speaking typically results in a revolution. It is people like YOU have have put more and more financial power in the hands of the government (thru taxation) to the point where they may actually be able to completely destroy the economy.

All of this is not the fault of the politicians - because the politicians in the end just serve themselves - or they serve the people who whine the loudest. Since when they are not serving themselves - they are serving people like YOU - who actually argue for more and more taxes - I see people like YOU as a far larger problem than any politician. And since people like YOU seem to think it is OK to send in government agents to give beatdowns to private citizens like the Browns - who actually had the balls to buck the system - unfortunately I don't quite see where it is worth my while to do anything about it yet.

If there is any good thing to come out of all of this - it is that people like YOU have given Obama and his minions such a boost that they seem to think they can do just about anything they want and get away with it. Their record since they have taken power is one of saying "screw you" to just about anybody who comes across their path. So as they tirelessly work towards raising taxes even more, spending the country into bankruptcy, and generally destroying whatever vestiges we have of a free market economy - the day gets closer and closer when one of those "peasant revolutions" begins.

All of what is currently going on in this country: the massive trillions of dollars in bailouts, the talk from the Obama administration about raising taxes on this and that and the other thing, the fraud, the waste, the make work projects, the concept that the government is the one entity that should be running everything in our lives - all of this, is the inevitable result of the type of thinking that people like YOU demonstrate.

You would apparently put up with just about anything - as long as the roads are paved. You will in fact (as you have been doing) - actually argue for more of it.

This is a problem on both the conservative - and the liberal side of the political aisle. There are far too many people who seem to think that big govt. is the solution to all of our problems. The so called conservatives will argue for less waste and less welfare, the liberals will argue for more welfare and less spending on the military. All the while the problem gets worse, the spending goes up, the taxes go up, and govt. accumulates more and more power. And the "conservatives" can't figure out why the big govt. they enabled is wasting so much money on welfare and taxpayer funded abortions, and the liberals can't figure out why the govt. is wasting so much money on corporate welfare and military spending. What these people are - is two sides of the same ignorant coin.

Please sir may I have another!

 

[Smiles1014]

So do you pay your taxes?

And your rant goes out the window....

And where do you get the time to make those lasts two posts? You work? I busy designing bridges today...

 

[calsdad]

Highway funding is a SHELL GAME:

I don't necessarily agree with some of what this woman is proposing, but she makes the point that the highways were supposed to be funded - are still supposed to be funded - out of revenues directly related to use of those roads.

NOT INCOME TAX.

She also points out that the feds move the money back and forth as they need to - which leads to political wrangling over each and every highway project, as well as hiding the true costs of infrastructure projects thru obfuscation of the actual costs involved.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/06/11/a-better-way-to-fund-roads/

June 11th, 2009
A better way to fund roads
–- Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The views expressed are her own. –-

Just as motorists began the summer driving season, U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told Congress that the Highway Trust Fund will run out of money by August. Rising gasoline prices and the recession mean less driving, and less driving means lower revenues from gasoline taxes for the Highway Trust Fund.

At the same time, President Obama wants to spend $13 billion as a downpayment on high-speed rail, an expensive form of transportation that will reach only small segments of the country and that will not substitute for highways. The money would be better spent on developing a more stable source of revenue for highways, based on miles driven rather than gasoline used, that would help to reduce traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.

When the Highway Trust Fund ran out of money in 2008, Congress transferred $8 billion to the fund from general revenues as a repayment from 1998, when the fund was in surplus, and $8 billion was moved into general spending. This year, if Congress transfers money, it would be a direct expenditure, with no fig leaf. Without a transfer, work on many projects would stop or slow down.

The federal government financed the interstate highway system by means of a fuel tax because that was the best method available. Legislation passed in 1956 provided that, on completion, the federal tax would be repealed and funding restored to the states. The highway system is now complete, so there is no rationale for continuing federal involvement in financing state roads.

The $13 billion allocated for high-speed rail would be better spent to encourage the states to adopt a new way of charging for road use. Driving is the primary method of transportation for Americans. They own about 235 million registered passenger cars, vans, pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles, and drive over 2.5 trillion miles a year.

Mechanisms for improving road finance were addressed earlier this year in a pathbreaking bipartisan report by the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission entitled Paying Our Way: A New Framework for Transportation Finance.

The Commission concluded that America should move away from gasoline taxes as a way to fund roads. With more efficient cars, motorists will be able to travel further using less gasoline while still imposing wear-and-tear on roads. Hence, maintenance and repair should be funded through direct user charges that are based on miles traveled on all streets and roads, rather than on gasoline purchased.

House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Jim Oberstar regards a vehicle mileage charge as one of a number of options under consideration as a complement or alternative to a gasoline tax, but he is not committed to any course of action, according to the committee communications director Jim Berard.

Ideally, a vehicle mileage charge would require a tamper-proof device that would track not only miles and time of day driven but also the route selected. This would allow states and local governments to vary the charges based on route taken and time of day driven. Motorists who travel on congested roads at peak times of day could be charged more, encouraging them to shift their travel away from rush hour.

Since the change in road financing cannot be made immediately, the Commission recommends setting up a user-charge system that would work in conjunction with the Highway Trust Fund until 2020, at which point the new system would be in place to take over.

Full transition to this new revenue system would require research, the purchase of technology, and pilot projects, all of which would be a better use of stimulus funds than high-speed rail. With prices of transponders and global positioning systems falling, sophisticated and efficient road pricing systems are now possible. GPS devices could be given to drivers who choose to participate, and drivers could pay as easily as they now pay for cell phones or E-ZPass tolls.

To make road user charges more politically palatable, participating motorists could be exempt from registration fees, but would pay road charges instead, charges that could vary by type of road used and time of day. Technologies exist to ensure that detailed information on trips is not sent out to motorists so that privacy is preserved.

The vanishing Highway Trust Fund is a wake-up call to use new technology to make our roads flow better.

 

[drgrant]

Bingo. You can spout all your libertarian ideals you want,

Is it really that "libertarian"? When this nation was founded, the
idea of an income tax was unfathomable. A constitutional republic was
not meant to have a gigantic central government.

but the fact remains we as Americans are obligated to pay taxes.

Yes, by the letter of the law- not as a moral imperative. There's a big
difference.

I have not and will not debate whether this in itself is right or wrong.

If we're not going to discuss whether it's right or wrong (at least in a moral sense) then there isn't much to discuss. It's very easy to gloss over the problem by ignoring the fact that the government in and of itself, is committing theft via implied threat of force, and the only "wrong" thing someone did was to work hard enough to trigger the first tax bracket.

Mark (sic) if you feel so strongly about it, as your post suggests, then why do you pay your taxes?

I'm guessing your post was directed to me.... I only pay my income taxes because there is a gun pointed at my head backed up by a set of
handcuffs. I've decided that paying taxes is "cheaper" than going to jail. I also don't have a phalanx of CPAs around me to save me money
on taxes by using tax shelters, either.

I'm not really sure of the intent of your comment. It's no different than saying to a gun owner in MA "If these laws are so bad, then why do you have a permit??" Freedom is all relative.

-Mike

 

[calsdad]

So do you pay your taxes?

And your rant goes out the window....

And where do you get the time to make those lasts two posts? You work? I busy designing bridges today...

A typical ignorant response.

I busy designing bridges today

And now the truth comes out.. You are working in a directly taxpayer funded industry. So apparently any level of govt. crap is acceptable - because it saves your job.

 

[Shooters-Hooksett]

Exactly

These asswipes wanted sympathy after getting caught owing on millions. How many here know what it's like to have millions-and not pay taxes? When most of us payed taxes to stay out of trouble - they did not! Screw them

Dirtbags don't pay their taxes, and dirtbags shouldn't have guns. The government should take them for partial payment on money owed.

 

[Smiles1014]

These asswipes wanted sympathy after getting caught owing on millions. How many here know what it's like to have millions-and not pay taxes? When most of us payed taxes to stay out of trouble - they did not! Screw them

I guess this just about sums up my reaction to this article as well. These two guys didn't have such philosophical and political reasons for not paying their taxes...and they have plenty of money. Maybe it is called the 'righteousness' of paying taxes along with your neighbor (moral), or your 'obligation', or not worth the consequencesof jail, or maybe it is just my plain jealousy of the them with all the money not paying up when I work 50 hours a week and pay up the nose. I think a combo of all that. The fact remains that they piss me off.

 

[dwarven1]

Maybe it is a political statement, or perhaps they truly believe that the State has no right to hold a gun to your head and force you to pay to live. and maybe, just maybe, you hate it too but aren't as willing to stand up for your beliefs.

 

[VARCHAR2]

From the standpoint of tax evasion, I see little difference between what the Browns did and what our chief tax collector, Tim Geithner, allegedly did (yet a big difference in treatment). However, outside of the legal perspective, what the Browns did was of much higher significance.

While Tim Geithner and millions other evade taxes in a sneaky way and try to get away with an extra buck (or million), the Browns' actions, a form of protest, were a direct affront to Federal taxation power and legitimacy. As such a tax protest there was only one probable outcome -- they had to be shut down by the Feds. I can think of only two reasons they, or anyone, would do this: 1) they are completely irrational and wholely selfish (would you do what they did? probably not), or 2) the matter is of such high importance to them that it was worth putting their livelihood at stake for what they believe to be right.

I tend to ascribe the later to them and believe they knowingly forced the hand of the Federal government as a matter of principle. They put it all on the line, and for whom? For all citizens, most of whom are complete strangers to them. They had very little to to gain and everything to lose. From my perspective, it was a wildly unselfish act. And, perhaps they didn't know what they were getting into, and they are completely insane (or at least irrational), and if so, the common citizen is still the benefactor of their protest.

 

[Du510]

Dirtbags don't pay their taxes, and dirtbags shouldn't have guns. The government should take them for partial payment on money owed.

Ah that's right, paying taxes is patriotic.

 

[Du510]

Maybe it is called the 'righteousness' of paying taxes along with your neighbor (moral), or your 'obligation', or not worth the consequencesof jail, or maybe it is just my plain jealousy of the them with all the money not paying up when I work 50 hours a week and pay up the nose. I think a combo of all that. The fact remains that they piss me off.

Or maybe its called "re-distribution of wealth".

 

[Smiles1014]

Maybe it is a political statement, or perhaps they truly believe that the State has no right to hold a gun to your head and force you to pay to live. and maybe, just maybe, you hate it too but aren't as willing to stand up for your beliefs.

I highly doubt this was their motives.

 

[Walther]

I highly doubt this was there motives.

Judge for yourself, here are his own words on it when he was still able to have them publicly ->http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=E08326E15EAA8075&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL

 

[namedpipes]

I happen to think that federal taxes are unjustly levied and the govt requiring you to pay them is illegal.
. . .
But again that's just me.

Nope. It isn't just you...

Am I the only one finds it difficult to reconcile "30 guns" with "huge weapons cache". The term "nice collection" would be more descriptive.

Maybe it was a small cache of huge weapons?

If we only had the gps coords of the ones that were buried!

 

[calsdad]

Judge for yourself, here are his own words on it when he was still able to have them publicly ->http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=E08326E15EAA8075&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL

Thanks for posting that.

 

[Gadsden]

I guess this just about sums up my reaction to this article as well. These two guys didn't have such philosophical and political reasons for not paying their taxes...and they have plenty of money.

Actually, it was philosophical and political reasons.. they said that from the start. And far as saying "they deserved what they got because they had plenty of money".. well.. I guess that will score you lots of points with the folks wanting to "spread the wealth around". Personally, I would like to keep what I work for.. I would be perfectly happy getting paid less than what I do and be able to say "it is mine, I earned it".

Maybe it is called the 'righteousness' of paying taxes along with your neighbor (moral), or your 'obligation', or not worth the consequencesof jail, or maybe it is just my plain jealousy of the them with all the money not paying up when I work 50 hours a week and pay up the nose. I think a combo of all that. The fact remains that they piss me off.

Once again.. it is the jealous cry of "I'm getting screwed, so by gawd everyone else deserves it too!" combined with the sense of self-righteousness of following the herd and bashing those who choose not to. I know how you feel.. I used to think the same way until I realized that I pay more in taxes than the median gross personal income of my father. I thought I was being "a good citizen" when I fell in line and payed my taxes, until I realized it was being squandered more and more by politicians that do not have my best interests at heart.

When you total it up I put in way more than 50 hours a week, and willingly lose a crapton of money by paying my taxes to the penny and following laws to the letter to avoid the hassle of not going to jail or having a gun in my face. I may not resist paying them, but I will be Goddamned if I condemn someone willing to put their necks on the line to stand up for what I only wish I had the courage to do.

This is a very good thread.. it does (in my opinion) give a very good insight of the 2A community and why we are likely hosed. As a friend of mine (and long time 2A activist) one said, "We eat our own." Too many of us are willing to toss someone under the bus for not following the rules we ourselves live by.. if this person gets busted for owning a firearm with too large capacity without the proper permission "they deserved it for not following the rules", if that person protects themselves by carrying w/o a permit because their state does not give them permission (never mind their lives could be in danger), well.... rules are rules and laws are laws. By gawd, they deserved it. The more radical side of the left are quite the opposite; they tend not to eat their own, but they hold us to our own rules. It is so effective Saul Alansky made it one of his golden rules in "Rules for Radicals".. and they have been kicking our arses with it ever since.

If you got a small reward for turning in your neighbor for not paying their taxes, would you do it? You have to pay all of yours, and they have plenty more money than you. Why not let them spread that wealth around.

If firearms were to be banned or restricted and you could get a small reward for turning in your neighbor for not turning their firearms in, would you? You had to turn yours in.. it is only fair they have to do the same. If you have to follow the rules, so should they. We must have a "fair" society, after all.

Rules are rules, and laws are laws don't forget. You can't let what is morally wrong get in the way of what the government tells you is right. In the meantime I will hope that the people willing to put themselves on the line to non-violently stand up to rules they don't feel is morally right do not fall prey to your jealousy. I wonder what your take would be if they were to make a difference, and all of a sudden you did not get taxed so much. Would you continue to do the "righteousness" thing to do and pay the higher amount? (If so, you are welcome to pay mine.. I pay plenty!)

God bless those people that have their lives turned upside down or ruined to peacefully stand up for what they believe in and take the system to the courts in order to get the rules changed. People like myself that do not want to lose everything will be there to support them and hope we never have to try to come up with an answer if they ask "Why do I have to go to jail to protect YOUR freedom?"

 

[bdutton]

I don't know if the government can retroactively go after property ....

Didn't stop them from going after the AIG 'bonuses' that the government had already agreed they could have.

 

[Edmond Dantes]

Let me ask you a couple of questions. Of course I know the answer so if you get stuck or can't find the answer don't be afraid to ask.

but the fact remains we as Americans are obligated to pay taxes.

Could you please cite the law that "obligates" us pay our Federal Income Tax?

'To pay for bridges to nowhere and more airports for John Murtha?

What does 100% of your Federal Income Tax go towards? It doesn't go towards those pet projects you cited above.

 

[Smiles1014]

We will always pay taxes for various reasons. We might not like how much or everything they are spent on, but we will always pay something to a governing body for functionality of a nation and of a people. This type of Libertarian or whatever you want to call it of not paying taxes and everything should be privatized will not happen unless there is a nuclear war or such that few are left and we have to 'start over'. You are a very very few of fringe thinkers in your armchairs that want to contribute nothing to society and be left alone. The vast majority, I think, actually do care to differing degrees about their neighbor. I am not talking about welfare, handouts, etc that you'd quickly jump to put words in my mouth. And on the same token I am not talking about every little program to help every hardship the meek and lazy put on themselves. By god then you'd pull out the liberal and socialism crap on me. Where is the line? It is in helping people to help themselves, and I think this is a worthwhile effort to contribute to with my money, to those that want the help to change and not to those that are looking to ride my coat tails. I do not think everyone should have the same salary, same living conditions, same everything and everyone sitting back waiting for the next guy to pick them up...that is socialism. You can call be stupid, dumb, uninformed, whatever, I don't care. I never pretended to be an intellectual know it all. I just think that all of you that argue about paying anything in taxes and wanting a 'freedom' of contributing nothing are misguided and have a moral deficit. I do not want to live in a world where no one cares about their neighbor to the slightest degree. I pay too much in taxes, that I will agree with, and also how it is spent. The fixing is in there somewhere, not in a total restructuring of a nation where everyone fends for themselves. That will be the dissolution of our society.

 

[dwarven1]

How in the world did the poor ever get along without the benevolent Government to help them out?

Oh, that's right... they relied on neighbors, family, church, friends, fraternities... Silly me... of COURSE without a Government gun held to my head I'd NEVER think of contributing 10% of my earnings to help my fellow man. Oh, wait... I think that the church called it TITHING.

Don't you DARE preach to me about how we need Mommy Government to take care of is. "Moral deficit"? That is offensive. I do NOT need the government to tell me to give to charity, and I resent like hell your implication that I do.

 

[Du510]

Okay, lets play a little game... one line yours, one line mine:

We will always pay taxes for various reasons. We might not like how much or everything they are spent on, but we will always pay something to a governing body for functionality of a nation and of a people.

No one is arguing that.

This type of Libertarian or whatever you want to call it of not paying taxes and everything should be privatized will not happen unless there is a nuclear war or such that few are left and we have to 'start over'. You are a very very few of fringe thinkers in your armchairs that want to contribute nothing to society and be left alone.

That type of generalization does nothing to support your argument, rather, it hinders your effectiveness. In retort, I hereby call you a fringe thinker in an arm-chair. Your calling "us" names makes just as much sense in my calling you the same. A little maturity will go a long way, please use it.

The vast majority, I think, actually do care to differing degrees about their neighbor.

I completely agree; I am very concerned for my neighbor. I donate more time & money (key word: DONATE) than anyone I know, for the good of my community. Boy Scouts, Good Will, Little League, ARC, etc etc etc etc...

I am not talking about welfare, handouts, etc that you'd quickly jump to put words in my mouth. And on the same token I am not talking about every little program to help every hardship the meek and lazy put on themselves. By god then you'd pull out the liberal and socialism crap on me. Where is the line? It is in helping people to help themselves, and I think this is a worthwhile effort to contribute to with my money, to those that want the help to change and not to those that are looking to ride my coat tails.

Again, can't say I disagree. However you allude but do not mention that your plan involves individuals being FORCED to pay for the above programs; a proverbial big-brother gun to the head. In contrast, I choose to support my community.

I do not think everyone should have the same salary, same living conditions, same everything and everyone sitting back waiting for the next guy to pick them up...that is socialism.

See, you agree with a libertarian mindset! (Note I intentionally use lower-case libertarian, as I do not identify with the "Party")

You can call be stupid, dumb, uninformed, whatever, I don't care. I never pretended to be an intellectual know it all.

You're making it too easy!

I just think that all of you that argue about paying anything in taxes and wanting a 'freedom' of contributing nothing are misguided and have a moral deficit.

Here we go again with the insults. Sorry, but I do not reply to insults.

I do not want to live in a world where no one cares about their neighbor to the slightest degree.

Neither do "we"; in fact, "we" fully align in that respect. The whole idea is that we as individuals should take care of eachother, as a community and as a people, rather than a massive Central Power dictating from afar.

I pay too much in taxes, that I will agree with, and also how it is spent. The fixing is in there somewhere, not in a total restructuring of a nation where everyone fends for themselves.

Again, we agree. You work hard for your money? You want to decide how your wages are spent? You want to not be forced to pay 40% of your wages for redistribution? Join the club.

That will be the dissolution of our society.

No one is looking for that, c'mon.

 

[Du510]

Let me ask you a couple of questions. Of course I know the answer so if you get stuck or can't find the answer don't be afraid to ask.

Could you please cite the law that "obligates" us pay our Federal Income Tax?

What does 100% of your Federal Income Tax go towards? It doesn't go towards those pet projects you cited above.

Answer #1:
========
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


Answer #2:
========
You are contorting his intent. Our wages, "given" to Washington, do indeed end up in projects like "Bridge to Nowhere", etc. Arguing that is a waste of breath.

 

[Smiles1014]

"Here we go again with the insults. Sorry, but I do not reply to insults."

It is not an insult if your are willing to contribute either by taxes or by your own accord. Why government has taxes is because not everyone feels they should contribute...when they should, just from a moral standpoint. Then those who do not contribute in the name of freedom wind up benefiting from those who do, i.e. roads.

Dwarven get over yourself. Again, if you are willing to contribute on your own, good for you. But if suddenly taxes went away, what percentage of the population would actually step up? I am afraid not as much as you think.

 

[dwarven1]

Dwarven get over yourself. Again, if you are willing to contribute on your own, good for you. But if suddenly taxes went away, what percentage of the population would actually step up? I am afraid not as much as you think.

Actually, I remember reading a study that showed that donations would go UP. As it is now, the thought is "well, government is taking it already, so why should I contribute more?".

And YOU were the one throwing personal insults around.

 

[Smiles1014]

As it is now, the thought is "well, government is taking it already, so why should I contribute more?".

And YOU were the one throwing personal insults around.

Agreed with the first part. I apologize for the second. My intent was only to insult those that feel they are to be just left alone and contribute nothing, monetarily, to society. For them, I do not apologize. There will always be these bad apples, and the necessary evil is in the disguise of exorbitant taxes.

 

[Du510]

It is not an insult if your are willing to contribute either by taxes or by your own accord. Why government has taxes is because not everyone feels they should contribute...when they should, just from a moral standpoint. Then those who do not contribute in the name of freedom wind up benefiting from those who do, i.e. roads.

Your quote was:

I just think that all of you that argue about paying anything in taxes and wanting a 'freedom' of contributing nothing are misguided and have a moral deficit.

That is nothing short of an insult. If you cannot agree to that, then you have my sympathies and I see no point in further discussing.

Again though, I feel you are missing the point; please review my entire post, as I spent some considerable time in an effort to explain.

We all know why any government imposes taxes; "we" aren't questioning or petitioning taxes in general. To those that are, "we" do not align in our position in the least bit. "We" are contributing members of society that fully understand taxes are to be paid for services that we all utilize, ie: roads and street lighting, Barney Frank's & Chris Dodd's paychecks, etc. (I insert humor, but the point remains.) "Our" petition is beyond that, and stating anything to the contrary is simply babble.

 

[drgrant]

We will always pay taxes for various reasons. We might not like how much or everything they are spent on, but we will always pay something to a governing body for functionality of a nation and of a people.

I don't disagree with that. The problem I have is WHERE the taxes are paid and the levels at which they are extracted. The current system is garbage. People are being robbed to pay for other people's crap, at current.

This type of Libertarian or whatever you want to call it of not paying taxes and everything should be privatized will not happen unless there is a nuclear war or such that few are left and we have to 'start over'.

Libertarian principles involve small government, not an eradicated one. I think your confusing libertarianism with anarchy.

You are a very very few of fringe thinkers in your armchairs that want to contribute nothing to society and be left alone.

No, we just don't want to be robbed at gunpoint and have NO say in how our money is redistributed to other people. I don't think that's too much to ask. Most of us here are not even suggesting the entire death of taxation, but merely a restructuring of how taxes are collected, among other things.

The vast majority, I think, actually do care to differing degrees about their neighbor. I am not talking about welfare, handouts, etc that you'd quickly jump to put words in my mouth. And on the same token I am not talking about every little program to help every hardship the meek and lazy put on themselves. By god then you'd pull out the liberal and socialism crap on me. Where is the line? It is in helping people to help themselves, and I think this is a worthwhile effort to contribute to with my money, to those that want the help to change and not to those that are looking to ride my coat tails.

Sorry, but stealing money from people at the end of a barrel of a gun and redistributing it is socialism, period. You can't really dance around that, no matter how hard you try. It's especially bad when the federal government does it. (The level of taxation states are allowed to levy is subject to a whole different debate... ) Our federal government was designed to handle a LIMITED number of functions. The level of taxation we experience at that level now indicates that it's expanded far beyond those functions.

I just think that all of you that argue about paying anything in taxes and wanting a 'freedom' of contributing nothing are misguided and have a moral deficit. I do not want to live in a world where no one cares about their neighbor to the slightest degree.

Then donate to a charity. You are free to do so. You will be MORE FREE to do so if more of your money doesn't get burned up by the government.

So you're going to tell us with a straight face that people who don't want to be robbed have a "moral deficit" ?

I pay too much in taxes, that I will agree with, and also how it is spent. The fixing is in there somewhere, not in a total restructuring of a nation where everyone fends for themselves. That will be the dissolution of our society.

The socialism were undergoing right now is a "dissolution" of our society- the death of the republic, as it were. Absurd levels of taxation, especially taxation that goes "back to the mothership far away" is part of the things that are KILLING our nation. The government and its functions grow bigger and bigger, and soon there will not be enough money to feed the beast.... So eventually your prediction will come true- everyone fending for themselves, because the government will fail. Except it will be worse for a very long time- people fending for themselves, and a government still pointing a gun at their head and collecting, as long as they can get away with it.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

It is not an insult if your are willing to contribute either by taxes or by your own accord. Why government has taxes is because not everyone feels they should contribute...when they should, just from a moral standpoint. Then those who do not contribute in the name of freedom wind up benefiting from those who do, i.e. roads.

You keep bringing up this canard about the "roads". In reality, the taxation paid for that resource is not really even relevant to the discussion of income tax, since DIRECT taxes collected on gas at the state and federal level (and fees collected at tolls, etc) should more than pay for "the roads". A road/air fuel tax is about as close as you can get to being "fair" since the people that benefit from the resource are directly paying for that resource.

-Mike

 

[Du510]

A road/air fuel tax is about as close as you can get to being "fair" since the people that benefit from the resource are directly paying for that resource.

-Mike

Why even go that loose.... road tolls are more direct.

 

[Smiles1014]

No, we just don't want to be robbed at gunpoint and have NO say in how our money is redistributed to other people. I don't think that's too much
to ask. Most of us here are not even suggesting the entire death of taxation, but merely a restructuring of how taxes are collected, among
other things.

We do have a say, our legislators are elected are they not? Many of us just disagree with who is elected and the subsequent results they produce.

Sorry, but stealing money from people at the end of a barrel of a gun and redistributing it is socialism, period. You can't really dance around that, no matter how hard you try. It's especially bad when the federal government does it. (The level of taxation states are allowed to levy is subject to a whole different debate... ) Our federal government was designed to handle a LIMITED number of functions. The level of taxation
we experience at that level now indicates that it's expanded far beyond those functions.

I am under the impression that what half what you say is only true. Redistributing wealth to the masses 'on an even board' splitting the masses into the elite (very small population) and the rest is socialism. Agreed that our federal government delves into areas not of the founding fathers intent.

Then donate to a charity. You are free to do so. You will be MORE FREE to do so if more of your money doesn't get burned up by the government.

I do in all the ways that Dwarven1 had mentioned. Agreed that the government frivolously spends, including to deadbeats in the name of altruism. 'What do you mean you want people to starve to death?"

So you're going to tell us with a straight face that people who don't want to be robbed have a "moral deficit" ?

A twist of words, of course not (to those that would contribute without the 'gun pointed to their head').

The socialism were undergoing right now is a "dissolution" of our society- the death of the republic, as it were. Absurd levels of taxation, especially taxation that goes "back to the mothership far away" is part of the things that are KILLING our nation. The government and its functions
grow bigger and bigger, and soon there will not be enough money to feed the beast.... So eventually your prediction will come true- everyone fending for themselves, because the government will fail. Except it will be worse for a very long time- people fending for themselves, and a government still pointing a gun at their head and collecting, as long as they can get away with it.

-Mike

Agreed.