Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why does anyone feel they are entitled to anymore of MY money?

page: 4
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
I agree 100% OP. I am leaving my job in a few weeks and I plan to go on unemployment and get all of the other socialist entitlements I possibly can. Between federal, state, local and property taxes I pay over 40k/year in taxes. I say ENOUGH!!! I QUIT! By the time I grab all of the benefits I can, I hope to become a net loss of 75k or more to the "system". Unless you know where I can find Galt's Gulch, I quit. I am done subsidizing the lazy.


I hope you reconsider.

We were at a barbeque a few weeks ago and ended up sitting at a table with a woman who grew up with my wife's friend who was hosting. She had just flown in from California with her two children and was telling us how great being unemployed was for her. She has been doing societally productive activities such as going to her wine club every week.

Her last comment (before I went in the house and rammed my head through a door) was that if unemployment was not extended further she might-MIGHT-have to go and get a job.

50%. How much more so other people can still enjoy their wine club.
If anything, your anecdote reinforces my desire to drop out. Why should I support people like her?


The irony is thick with this one.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, I guess.




posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by yadda333
If you pay property taxes then you must own a home. That must be nice, huh?


Yes, it is. I worked for it, it was not given to me.


If your property taxes are what you say they are, then I bet you have a pretty nice home, huh?


It is noce but it is not ostentatious. Property taxes in New Jersey, particularly northern New Jersey are among the highest in the country. My next door neighbor, who happens to live in a former carriage house totalling 1,300 square feet, pays $11,000 in property taxes. I know this because she also appealed hers. Does this sound reasonable?


These threads are becoming tiring.


Then stop reading them.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
i do feel the pain. 50% is steep, although I think the OP is using a bit of hyperbole. It is his last dollars earned (above $250,000 adjusted gross income) that is taxed at 50%. It is not the whole $250,000 that is taxed at 50%. Regardless, the tax rates are too high.


The almost 50% figure is cumlative and includes property taxes. For what it is worth our school system is ranked 130th to 140th (depending on what publication you read) or so out of New Jersey's 300 or so districts. High taxes, average results.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


Before you start blaming the poor for all your money woes, it's the government that's run by the super rich that are taking your money and squandering it. I don't get it; do the upper middle class like you actually think that poor people take up most of the high taxes they pay?



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by fooks
reply to post by Kitilani
 


depends on what state you are in.

things are better in MA than Nebraska

for people on the states payroll.




No, it really does not. Finding it easier to live poorly in one state vs another does nothing to kill the point that being on welfare sucks. There is a reason none of the people railing about how awesome it is will ever actually just go give up their jobs and get on it. In fact, they might even be surprised to find it that they cannot even do that but then ignorance of living poor is rife on the right. I hear them go on and on about how awesome it must be to be on welfare. So go get on it and tell me how you like it.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


I have an easy answer for you Brother.


Atlas Shrugged.

Directive 10-289



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by newcovenant
 
If you should not be forced to pay for his kids school, why should he be forced to pay for yours when his kids are not attending the same school?

RE The minimum standards: What a joke. Look at the test scores and graduation rates since the formation of the dept of education. Look at literacy rates. Be serious. The dept of education is an example of Orwellian double speak.



I have no children. Why should I be forced to pay ANY of his?




posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

 


There has been a good deal of rhetoric coming from the White House and politcal pundits about people having to 'pay their fair share' or 'share the burden'. I am a former business owner (restaurant) who is now involved in the manufacturing sector for the past three years. While I no longer own a business I still put in nearly the same amount of hours, they are just condensed into the standard work week and no longer occupy my weekends.

I am not ashamed to admit that I was very successful when I had my business. I made a good profit each year and had a happy and dedicated client base. My partner and I sold it for a profit and I took the position I currently hold. I have also done quite well here and have helped our company grow despite the down economy.

While I am certainly not one of the 'millionares and billionaires' that seem to get vilified as of late I have done well and would fall under the target group of earners (due to filing jointly) that would see their taxes increase further if current White House sentiment were to become law.

When I sold my business I paid nearly 40% in taxes on the proceeds. This was after paying state and federal income taxes every year for thirteen years as well as strictly, in my opinion, punitive taxes such as New Jersey's Corporate Business Tax (CBT) which is basically a tax just for deciding you want to own a business. We decided to sell because of the prospect of diminshing returns for the amount of work required. I employed over 14 people when I sold it. Sadly, the people who bought it went out of business within two years and everyone lost their jobs. I has thankful that I was able to get a few of them work (one with me and two with friends) but I have second thoughts and regret about selling because of this and I know I could have kept the establishment running indefinetly.

In my new postition we currently pay, between our joint earnings, nearly 50% in taxes between state, federal and local property taxes.

So I ask again; at what point is it enough? How much more of the money I worked hard to earn will I be required to give? 55%? 60%? More?

At what point does someone feel obliagted to anymore of my hardwork? I have no issue paying my fair share, but I have a serious issue paying other people's fair share.

 




The problem is the "anyone" symbol you use. There isn't a single man sitting in the government that is receiving all of the money. The taxes you and I pay are paid to SOCIETY, they are used to keep us civilized. None of us can say we do not wish this because nothing you accomplish would be possible with out society.

In your example you owned a restaraunt, if not for you living in a SOCIETY, you would not have enjoyed nice returns, you would need 20 children to work the farm to provide your materials, not to mention they would have to learn to shoot at the age of five to defend your businesses. I could go on and on and what society provided you with which enabled you to own a successful business (roads, logistics, security, etc).

So what persons such as yourself are doing is neglecting to look at the actual picture. You want the luxury of living in a modern, functional, society but at the same time you want the Right to live in a Frontier type environment where you're not taxed and the government leaves you alone. You can't have it both ways.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


By my standards, the amount of taxes you paid was more than enough. Worth noting that there's a good chance that many of your customers were and are gov. employees.

Worldwide operations are costly I must add...



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by newcovenant
 
If you should not be forced to pay for his kids school, why should he be forced to pay for yours when his kids are not attending the same school?

RE The minimum standards: What a joke. Look at the test scores and graduation rates since the formation of the dept of education. Look at literacy rates. Be serious. The dept of education is an example of Orwellian double speak.



I have no children. Why should I be forced to pay ANY of his?





Because you live in a civilized society and benefit from either working for, or with, or have working for you, a reasonably educated citizen. A reasonably educated society also means you and your loved ones have less to worry about having your head knocked off for petty reasons. The list would probably be too long to type it all....



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Does anyone know what percentage of their tax goes to funding the unemployed?

How much goes to paying off bank bailouts?

How much for the current wars you are involved in?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by DZAG Wright

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by newcovenant
 
If you should not be forced to pay for his kids school, why should he be forced to pay for yours when his kids are not attending the same school?

RE The minimum standards: What a joke. Look at the test scores and graduation rates since the formation of the dept of education. Look at literacy rates. Be serious. The dept of education is an example of Orwellian double speak.


I have no children. Why should I be forced to pay ANY of his?



Because you live in a civilized society and benefit from either working for, or with, or have working for you, a reasonably educated citizen. A reasonably educated society also means you and your loved ones have less to worry about having your head knocked off for petty reasons. The list would probably be too long to type it all....



That's socialism.





edit on 23-8-2011 by newcovenant because: And incidentally, I agree with you.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
edit on 23-8-2011 by ScRuFFy63 because: double post



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I think it's pretty well known that big business are the ones who pay to make the laws lean there way. I don't think anybody wants to tax small businesses the exorbitant amount of 50%. Small businesses are an essential part of this country. They help fill the gaps that big business doesn't care about.

How can you blame the lazy and the poor for laws created by gov. paid for by big business? If the ice cream man offered you a free ice cream cone on a hot day wouldn't you take it?



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by mustard seed
reply to post by gandamack2
 


WOW! Gonna be nice about this
www.msu.edu...
As one of those Darkies I forgive your profound ignorance
seed



Your source doesn't cite where they get those numbers from. Also, if its not a black problem why is it perceived as a black problem? Yes, whites are on welfare too but you do not see them included in such conversations. See below.




posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


Before you start blaming the poor for all your money woes, it's the government that's run by the super rich that are taking your money and squandering it. I don't get it; do the upper middle class like you actually think that poor people take up most of the high taxes they pay?


It is simple.

People have been brain washed to focus on distractions instead of the real issues.

Blaming "lazy" people is a lot easier than fighting real organized greed and corruption.

Tracking the Flow of Money
www.nytimes.com...



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


Seriously, the "plight of the wealthy" is getting boring and bordering on offensive.

You will get no sympathy.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


I am sure you would share money with your family members who had bad luck. You had good luck. Make the rest of your fellow citizens like your family. Share your luck.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


The great French classical liberal, Frederic Bastiat, stated that plunder is always easier than profit. In other words, it is easier for the poor to use government as a tool to plunder you for your earnings, than it is for them to get off of their a$$ and go earn it themselves. This is the basis for the Democrat party, and more importantly, the zero liability voter. The non-tax paying citizen votes for those that will use their power in government to take from you and give to them. To answer your question, it is never enough, and you will probably be called a racist or some other commonly thrown around term because you have the nerve to suggest that you are entitled to keep your personal property, instead of have it redistributed to those that did not earn it. So where is your incentive to work hard if the fruits of your hard work are taken from you? There isn't one... and that is the end result of progressivism aka hope and change.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


The great French classical liberal, Frederic Bastiat, stated that plunder is always easier than profit. In other words, it is easier for the poor to use government as a tool to plunder you for your earnings, than it is for them to get off of their a$$ and go earn it themselves. This is the basis for the Democrat party, and more importantly, the zero liability voter. The non-tax paying citizen votes for those that will use their power in government to take from you and give to them. To answer your question, it is never enough, and you will probably be called a racist or some other commonly thrown around term because you have the nerve to suggest that you are entitled to keep your personal property, instead of have it redistributed to those that did not earn it. So where is your incentive to work hard if the fruits of your hard work are taken from you? There isn't one... and that is the end result of progressivism aka hope and change.




This is so blatantly wrong I don't know where to begin...

How is it "easier for the poor to use government as a tool to plunder you for your earnings" when the government is instituted and slanted toward the wealthy? Government is NEVER manned by "the poor".

See how silly your understanding is?





new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join