1. the_tech_eater's Avatar
    I've decided that every time a tea party , aka angry white male concerned with maintaining this dominion, complains about taxation it will be now known as playing the tax card!!!!
    I'm perfectly ok with that! I hate taxes from the top of my head to the bottom of my feet. The government takes over $200 out of every pay check I get! A necessary evil I guess.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
    12-20-2014 10:29 AM
  2. the_tech_eater's Avatar
    I'm perfectly ok with that! I hate taxes from the top of my head to the bottom of my feet. The government takes over $200 out of every pay check I get! A necessary evil I guess.
    But I am by no means part of the tea party, and you basically just admitted that whites are the ones that pay most of taxes lol


    Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk



    Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
    12-20-2014 10:30 AM
  3. acadia11's Avatar
    Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
    $200. You are doing ok, I paid more in tax than average salary!!!! And I bet you have kids and believe we should have flat tax.

    All seriousness do you believe we should have zero taxation? Or mor localized taxation?
    12-20-2014 10:50 AM
  4. the_tech_eater's Avatar
    $200. You are doing ok, I paid more in tax than average salary!!!! And I bet you have kids and believe we should have flat tax.

    All seriousness do you believe we should have zero taxation? Or mor localized taxation?
    No I don't have kids, and I did say that taxes are a necessary evil. But I still think they should be lower, way lower. I do like the idea of more localized taxation though.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
    12-20-2014 10:52 AM
  5. acadia11's Avatar
    No I don't have kids, and I did say that taxes are a necessary evil. But I still think they should be lower, way lower. I do like the idea of more localized taxation though.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
    I've always wondered this , then how would we create the strong infrastructure that the U.S. Has? We already have a deficit , so how would things get paid for and what would you cut, if we had these much lower taxes.

    We want an advanced society but we want it to be paid for by who???
    A895 likes this.
    12-20-2014 10:58 AM
  6. the_tech_eater's Avatar
    I've always wondered this , then how would we create the strong infrastructure that the U.S. Has? We already have a deficit , so how would things get paid for and what would you cut, if we had these much lower taxes.

    We want an advanced society but we want it to be paid for by who???
    I don't have all the answers to that lol. I do think there is way too much waste though. And I see no reason for all the tax breaks and loopholes for the ultra wealthy and oil companies.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
    12-20-2014 11:01 AM
  7. acadia11's Avatar
    I don't have all the answers to that lol. I do think there is way too much waste though. And I see no reason for all the tax breaks and loopholes for the ultra wealthy and oils companies.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
    Any organization is wasteful as it becomes larger. But I would say this compared to large private sector companies the government is actually pretty dayum efficient, surprisingly Medicare system is considered the most efficient medical insurer in terms or processing, and paying claims.

    Personally, I think more localized would be better but then you would see an even greater quality of living standard between areas, for example the west and northeast are far wealthier than most of Midwest and south, save Texas, imagine how much poorer a state like Mississippi would be if it had only to rely on its local tax base.
    A895 and the_tech_eater like this.
    12-20-2014 11:07 AM
  8. the_tech_eater's Avatar
    Any organization is wasteful as it becomes larger. But I would say this compared to large private sector companies the government is actually pretty dayum efficient, surprisingly Medicare system is considered the most efficient medical insurer in terms or processing, and paying claims.

    Personally, I think more localized would be better but then you would see an even greater quality of living standard between areas, for example the west and northeast are far wealthier than most of Midwest and south, save Texas, imagine how much poorer a state like Mississippi would be if it had only to rely on its local tax base.
    That is true. There would have to be some federal taxes to help out the poorer regions or something like that.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
    12-20-2014 11:09 AM
  9. the_tech_eater's Avatar
    I like how this thread has become! Us here having a discussion about possible ways to make the government better like we would if we were at a Starbucks... I like it!


    Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
    12-20-2014 11:12 AM
  10. A895's Avatar
    That is true. There would have to be some federal taxes to help out the poorer regions or something like that.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
    You just described welfare.
    12-20-2014 11:26 AM
  11. the_tech_eater's Avatar
    You just described welfare.
    No I didn't. We were talking about infrastructure and the such. Welfare doesn't build infrastructure, it holds people in poverty. You obviously didn't like that we were having a friendly conversation so you decided to come and try to wreck it. Doesn't really surprise me.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
    12-20-2014 11:26 AM
  12. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    I don't mind taxes for the most part...I just want them to eradicate the IRS and develop a legitimate branch of the Treasury department to handle all aspects of taxation and to renovate the system as a whole...
    A895 likes this.
    12-20-2014 12:16 PM
  13. A895's Avatar
    No I didn't. We were talking about infrastructure and the such. Welfare doesn't build infrastructure, it holds people in poverty. You obviously didn't like that we were having a friendly conversation so you decided to come and try to wreck it. Doesn't really surprise me.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
    What? What you described does sound like welfare. And by design it does not hold people back. I was really saying that sounded like welfare. But you obviously got defensive over something meaningless.
    12-20-2014 01:16 PM
  14. A895's Avatar
    I don't mind taxes for the most part...I just want them to eradicate the IRS and develop a legitimate branch of the Treasury department to handle all aspects of taxation and to renovate the system as a whole...
    I mean by design the IRS isn't that bad on paper, but I can see it needing to be overhauled. I don't really mind taxes either. When I used to get checks or pay various taxes for this or that, I don't think "taxes need to die", but I think a better more defined tax system on income would be a good welcome for starters.
    12-20-2014 01:18 PM
  15. the_tech_eater's Avatar
    What? What you described does sound like welfare. And by design it does not hold people back. I was really saying that sounded like welfare. But you obviously got defensive over something meaningless.
    Since when is welfare localized? You obviously don't get what we were discussing or rather dreaming about. If taxes were localized, the wealthier regions would have better roads, schools, hospitals, and so on. So what I proposed was that there be a small tax imposed by the federal government to help compensate for the lower revenue of those poorer regions. Welfare has nothing to do with that. And of course we were only discussing this, it's not like we're saying this should be done, or that's it's a viable option. Just discussing it.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
    12-20-2014 01:36 PM
  16. BreakingKayfabe's Avatar
    I wish people like myself who have ZERO kids and dependents got a tax break as opposed to the cholos in South Central who have 3 kids (ugly ones at that lol) out of wedlock.

    This is a subject I'm most passionate about because I hate people who look for breaks because they have 890 kids.
    the_tech_eater likes this.
    12-20-2014 01:53 PM
  17. A895's Avatar
    Since when is welfare localized? You obviously don't get what we were discussing or rather dreaming about. If taxes were localized, the wealthier regions would have better roads, schools, hospitals, and so on. So what I proposed was that there be a small tax imposed by the federal government to help compensate for the lower revenue of those poorer regions. Welfare has nothing to do with that. And of course we were only discussing this, it's not like we're saying this should be done, or that's it's a viable option. Just discussing it.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
    What revenue is lower? Those of lower income still pay taxes.
    12-20-2014 02:09 PM
  18. the_tech_eater's Avatar
    What revenue is lower? Those of lower income still pay taxes.
    Again, you aren't getting it. Read over what we discussed again. You liked and thanked the post were acadia said that some regions are wealthier than others. How could you have forgot it now?


    Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
    12-20-2014 02:10 PM
  19. the_tech_eater's Avatar
    I wish people like myself who have ZERO kids and dependents got a tax break as opposed to the cholos in South Central who have 3 kids (ugly ones at that lol) out of wedlock.

    This is a subject I'm most passionate about because I hate people who look for breaks because they have 890 kids.
    I agree! Down here in South Georgia everyone and their brother tries to have as many kids as possible out of wedlock because of the welfare benefits they get. That right there is the number one reason why I think the system welfare needs a 100% overhaul.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
    12-20-2014 02:12 PM
  20. A895's Avatar
    Again, you aren't getting it. Read over what we discussed again. You liked and thanked the post were acadia said that some regions are wealthier than others. How could you have forgot it now?


    Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
    He was saying that localizing systems would be better, I agree, he said nothing of lower revenue. You brought that up. I was localizing taxes sounds like an excellent idea to improve infrastructure.

    But you suggested that there is another tax to compensate for a gap that wasn't talked about. This is why I said poorer regions still pay taxes, and if there is a tax gap, I would like yo learn about it, by all indications those with less income pay more taxes. What needs to happen is that those taxes should go back into the areas that pay them.
    12-20-2014 02:18 PM
  21. the_tech_eater's Avatar
    He was saying that localizing systems would be better, I agree, he said nothing of lower revenue. You brought that up. I was localizing taxes sounds like an excellent idea to improve infrastructure.

    But you suggested that there is another tax to compensate for a gap that wasn't talked about. This is why I said poorer regions still pay taxes, and if there is a tax gap, I would like yo learn about it, by all indications those with less income pay more taxes. What needs to happen is that those taxes should go back into the areas that pay them.
    Of course they still pay taxes, I never even hinted that they didn't. But you have to take into consideration that some regions aren't as populated, and the population in some regions generally have lower incomes for various reasons. I agree 100% with your last sentence though.
    this is what I was replying to:
    "Personally, I think more localized would be better but then you would see an even greater quality of living standard between areas, for example the west and northeast are far wealthier than most of Midwest and south, save Texas, imagine how much poorer a state like Mississippi would be if it had only to rely on its local tax base."


    Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
    12-20-2014 02:22 PM
  22. A895's Avatar
    Of course they still pay taxes, I never even hinted that they didn't. But you have to take into consideration that some regions aren't as populated, and the population in some regions generally have lower incomes for various reasons. I agree 100% with your last sentence though.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
    I also have to take into consideration taxes based on income are usually harsher on lower incomes than higher incomes. You complain that you get $200 taken out for taxes, I bet that you don't make no more than $20-25,000 a year, which is lower class income.

    That is why people should be aware of beforehand where their taxes go to by attending city or town meetings, voting at local elections on any major projects. These people are paid on your dime and do these projects with your money, your say is most important and should be exercised the most.

    Based on past experience on living in a low income city (Rochester, NY), most taxes get allocated to renovating streets, and on education. Our city was one of the worst in NY for graduation rates with close to 40% graduation rate.
    12-20-2014 02:29 PM
  23. acadia11's Avatar
    He was saying that localizing systems would be better, I agree, he said nothing of lower revenue. You brought that up. I was localizing taxes sounds like an excellent idea to improve infrastructure.

    But you suggested that there is another tax to compensate for a gap that wasn't talked about. This is why I said poorer regions still pay taxes, and if there is a tax gap, I would like yo learn about it, by all indications those with less income pay more taxes. What needs to happen is that those taxes should go back into the areas that pay them.
    Actually this isn't true most of the southern states take in more on federal aid then they send back in Federal taxes, I need to find the chart. The biggest difference is population density that causes this, the north and west is much more densely populated and overall economies due to industry generate a lot more.

    States like Montana, Alaska, North Dakota are anomalies low population but they have high income nbera due to natural resources, the south is devoid of large resource deposits, plus has lower wages, and less industry , except for Texas so overall it's recipe for poorer region that needs to get more federal dollars.
    12-20-2014 02:38 PM
  24. A895's Avatar
    Actually this isn't true most of the southern states take in more on federal aid then they send back in Federal taxes, I need to find the chart. The biggest difference is population density that causes this, the north and west is much more densely populated and overall economies due to industry generate a lot more.

    States like Montana, Alaska, North Dakota are anomalies low population but they have high income nbera due to natural resources, the south is devoid of large resource deposits, plus has lower wages, and less industry , except for Texas so overall it's recipe for poorer region that needs to get more federal dollars.
    I think Category Grants go under this. It depends on what the state is asking for. If they want money to renovate areas, they can ask for a category grant, and the Feds pay up to 90% for it. We can't categorize renovations under mandates or black grants as they usually cover government functions.
    12-20-2014 02:43 PM
  25. acadia11's Avatar
    I agree! Down here in South Georgia everyone and their brother tries to have as many kids as possible out of wedlock because of the welfare benefits they get. That right there is the number one reason why I think the system welfare needs a 100% overhaul.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
    Welfare isn't a large part of the government budget. It's actually pretty low in terms of cost. Reagan pretty much undid a welfare as a new deal FDR system ended pretty much with Clinton with final reform acts. Interestingly the Obama phone , has nothing to do with Obama, and isn't real the actual program started under Reagan with lan lines, the government subsidized lan lines because low income earners should have a way for employers to call them and for schools to contact in reference to their children. It was expanded to cell phones under Clinton and further under bush jr

    Interesting facts

    Welfare aka tanf, has 4 million people on it

    Less than 1% of the white population is on welfare , less than 3% of the black population is in welfare

    Federal aid tanf is less the 1% of annual budget

    The biggest social program actually goes, seniors. Vets , and children mainly and that is Medicaid /Medicare at 35% of annual budget , projected to hit 50% in 20 years , mainly due to aging population. And well whites live longer than blacks I'm just saying stop sucking up all the federal dollars and blaming us!!!

    All seriousness though the welfare bit is about one of the biggest political Myths that gets passed around
    12-20-2014 02:50 PM
938 ... 3233343536 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Even a 7 Year Old Boy can Break into an iPhone Finger Print Touch ID Technology
    By thymaster in forum General Apple News & Discussion
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 01-01-2015, 07:22 AM
  2. Will Apple give me a new 5c?
    By iMore Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-11-2014, 07:11 PM
  3. UPWORDS - classic word game, and now an app
    By iMore Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-10-2014, 04:34 PM
  4. Apple Stores reportedly will offer Sprint iPhone financing options
    By iMore.com in forum iMore.com News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-10-2014, 03:40 PM
  5. Transformers: Battle Tactics will launch with turn-based combat in 2015
    By iMore.com in forum iMore.com News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-10-2014, 12:30 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD