The IRS!!!!

[ACHANGEL]

This is a thread about the IRS.

For those of you that do not know IRS stands for (Internal Revenue Service)

Well people it is Tax Season and i though of making a thread about the goverment organization that controls your tax's please tell a little about your experience with the IRS or if you don't have what you think about it.

This year try your best to file early for the simple reson that there are going to some delays on your return!!!

Did you know that they might be getting rid of the IRS pretty soon and if so what is the United States Goverment going to replace it with???

[rabbi]

No offence, but I think this thread is stupid and pointless. You def. shouldn't have made a thread or poll about it. ;)

[Snowolf]

IRS. Rules!

[Jeffery]

This is a thread about the IRS.

For those of you that do not know IRS stands for (Internal Revenue Sevice)

Well people it is Tax Season and i though of making a thread about the goverment organization that controls your tax's please tell a little about your experience with the IRS or if you don't have what you think about it.

This year try your best to file early for the simple reson that there are going to some delays on your return!!!

Did you know that they might be getting rid of the IRS pretty soon and if so what is the United States Goverment going to replace it with???
I'd like to see where you think they might be getting rid of the IRS soon.........

[ACHANGEL]

Me think this was a stupid idea ahh ohh well i felt like posting it so :p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p

[Jeffery]

Me think this was a stupid idea ahh ohh well i felt like posting it so :p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p
I'd still be interested in hearing where you heard such a thing.

[ACHANGEL]

i heard it from a family memder that works there
and i didn't say that the IRS is going but it just might

[ACHANGEL]

but here is some new's on the delays
http://news.yahoo.com/s/wgal/20080116/lo_wgal/15055214

[Greed]

I always figured the S stood for Service.

[Snowolf]

I=I
R=Request
S=Service

Greed is right

[KBHoleN1]

I=I
R=Request
S=Service

Greed is right

The slightest bit of sarcasm flies right over your head doesn't it? Greed was making a joke, because ACHANGEL misspelled Service.

Not to mention that you said the I stood for I. Brilliance. I think if you would take a few seconds to think before you post, you wouldn't make such dumb posts.

[uniquinous]

AchAngel - you shouldn't be spreading illegitimate rumors and hearsay. That's my pseudo-neg.

[Snowolf]

O.o pseudo-neg.

[Elentari]

The slightest bit of sarcasm flies right over your head doesn't it? Greed was making a joke, because ACHANGEL misspelled Service.

Not to mention that you said the I stood for I. Brilliance. I think if you would take a few seconds to think before you post, you wouldn't make such dumb posts.

Actually, while wolf might have missed Greed's joke, you seem to have missed his.

He obviously does not seriously believe that the I stands for I. Thanks for trying though, kb.

[Snowolf]

Actually, while wolf might have missed Greed's joke, you seem to have missed his.

He obviously does not seriously believe that the I stands for I. Thanks for trying though, kb.

I understood greed's joke, I just didn't want to start an arguement so i just let it go.

But thanks Elentari

[Anarchy_United]

Now if only we could start the War on Taxes. The IRS, the true American enemy.

[R G]

There are definitly better ideas on taxes that are being discussed. The Flat Tax was talked about and the newest and one I like the best is the Fair Tax. www.fairtax.org

Basically the Fair Tax is a consumption tax or sales tax so to speak. It is designed to send everyone a "Prebate" to cover taxes on the basic necessities of life such as groceries and such. This would ensure that the poor are not punished.

There would be no withholding from your paycheck. Everything is paid for via the national sales tax. This alone would help get tax money from the underground or illegal methods that people may now be earning money....think drug dealers.

I could go on, but it really would do alot to put the power back into the peoples hand...which is why it probally will never happen.

[uniquinous]

to cover the taxes on groceries? maybe i misunderstood that, but no state that i've shopped in taxes for groceries or other basic necessities of life...

[R G]

You are right most states do exempt taxes from groceries...not all...but that is the current system too where sales tax guide lines are dictated by the state and local levels. You can see the entire list below.

http://www.ctj.org/html/foodtax.htm

The new system would be a Federal Sales Tax on top of what states charge...but would get rid of some of the embedded tax that corporations pay already. Remember corporations don't pay taxes they just pass them down to the the consumer as a part of the cost of the product. This would make us more able to compete in a global economy too.



The point of the prebate tax for the Fair Tax, as I understand it is to simplify things since grocery stores sell more than just groceries and some stores...Walmart, Target are now starting to sell groceries.

[Teacher]

I am curious as to how many people in the forums actually have to deal with the IRS and taxes.

[Jeffery]

I am curious as to how many people in the forums actually have to deal with the IRS and taxes.
I (well, a not-for-profit I worked with) have even had the IRS seize 2 bank accounts because they fined us like $30,000.

[KickAssPlaya]

I am curious as to how many people in the forums actually have to deal with the IRS and taxes.

I deal with taxes. This will be my second year! :)

And I'm happy.. I'm getting $500 back! :cool: Too bad it's all going to my college fund... :(

~KAP

[uniquinous]

You are right most states do exempt taxes from groceries...not all...but that is the current system too where sales tax guide lines are dictated by the state and local levels. Wait wait wait - in your last post you were preaching about how the power should be in the hands of the people, not large government. Now you're directly stating it's dictated at the local level... so what's the problem?

[R G]

Wait wait wait - in your last post you were preaching about how the power should be in the hands of the people, not large government. Now you're directly stating it's dictated at the local level... so what's the problem?

Oh you would still have sales taxes on a local level. That would not go away under the Fair Tax. There would not be any difference on how states and local municipalities collect taxes, it's just a different way to fund the government and since you have the power to either buy stuff or not it does give more power to the people.:)

It's just that the things like Federal Income Tax, the embedded Taxes that you pay on goods would go away and the Federal Government would be funded by a Sales Tax. Everything that you buy you would have to pay a tax on...rather than a system like we have where everything you earn you pay a tax on and then pay more tax on at a state level. Much simpler don't you think? :)

[Jeffery]

The biggest advantage of the Far Ta is the fact that even those earning wages illegally will then be paying equal ta as those earning legal wages.

A drug dealer wants to go buy that brand new Escalade? BAM

[R G]

*bump*

Here's a link you can sign up to a webinar on the fairtax.

http://wsbradio.com/ads/fairtax_webinar.html

[Jeffery]

It'll never happen.

[R G]

Don't be such a "Pesimist"!!!

Have faith....It will only come if people push for it to happen....remember we are dealing with power hungry politicians here.....Here's a better link for ya...you can avoid filling out all the bullcrap.

http://www.visualwebcaster.com/event.asp

Call your congress person and let them know...FairTax is the way to go!!!

[Jeffery]

You do realise that the rich would lose bigtime with a fair ta, and only rich people get into politics.
So no, no matter how much some politician or another pretends to want to do this, it will never happen.

[Northwind]

I hate filling out f-ing tax forms. Those are the worst. Truth be told, my wife files them because I hate them sooo much.

However, I don't really mind paying my taxes. I kind of think that this is my chance to show that I love this country enough to support it with my money. Not that I approve of everything America does, but I like that my taxes go to keeping things humming along . . . like fixing roads and regulating industries and supporting national parks and paying police, etc. I like that stuff and I'm pretty happy to pay for it. I mean, I'm sure I could buy more crap with the extra money, but I'm just as happy to invest it in America.

I have looked into the whole Fair Tax thing (I think it was SKOF that first posted a link about it here) and I think it's kind of interesting. It has the advantages of simplicity and seems to not do a terrible job at taxing the wealthy more (because they often buy more) and does still tax the underground trade.

I do think that those who have benefitted the most from our system (read: really wealthy people) should pay a larger percentage of their income as a way of saying "thank you" to this country for giving them that opportunity. I'm not sure the "Fair Tax" addresses this well, but I'd like to see more of a national discussion about it.

[Northwind]

You do realise that the rich would lose bigtime with a fair ta, and only rich people get into politics.
So no, no matter how much some politician or another pretends to want to do this, it will never happen.
I think you're over-personalizing politics a bit. I don't think it works like "gee, I'm rich, so I'm going to vote low taxes for the rich."

I think it's much more complicated than that. I think that corporations would probably be against the Fair Tax as they would fear it would decrease consumption (horrors!) and lobby like crazy against it. They would then put re-election moneys toward anti-Fair Tax candidates and, as we know, more money often ends up bringing in more votes for a candidate (better and more ads, etc.). We the people, would then elect the well-supported candidates who, having gotten in beholden to the corporations, would vote down the Fair Tax.

I don't mean to pick on you Jeffery, I just often see arguments like "they wouldn't do that because it doesn't line their pockets." I think those arguments don't really reflect the world as it is. I mean it seems all cynical and hip to think that way, but I don't think it's correct. (And frankly, the more complicated position isn't any less cynical.) :dry:

[Jeffery]

Funny. Every ta>< break that gets passed by the government has to do with ta breaks for the rich.
So it does kinda go "gee, I'm rich, so I'm going to vote low taxes for the rich."

It's like why you will never see serious campaign finance reforms. The very people getting elected are getting elected by abusing the system as it is, and they have no reason, nor want, to change it.

[Northwind]

Funny. Every ta>< break that gets passed by the government has to do with ta breaks for the rich.
So it does kinda go "gee, I'm rich, so I'm going to vote low taxes for the rich."
I don't actually think that's true (well, under the Bush administration, but we're talking more generally). There have been plenty of taxes on the wealthy. For just a couple of examples, the inheritance tax affects ONLY people with means and our current progressive tax system (with higher income people paying a higher percentage of their income than lower income people) specifically costs the rich more. It's true that there are a number of loopholes, but I think those exist for the reason you state. In the 70's we had an even more progressive system than we have now. According to your logic, this would be impossible. How would you explain it?

It's like why you will never see serious campaign finance reforms. The very people getting elected are getting elected by abusing the system as it is, and they have no reason, nor want, to change it.
I don't entirely disagree with this, but this is a little different than your argument above. But I still think the "I am going to vote for whatever law benefits me, personally, the most" line of thinking is both over-simplified and incorrect. If it ever became politically unpopular to be against serious campaign finance reform, I bet you'd see politicians scramble all over themselves to vote in serious campaign finance reform.

And yes, I do get that by focusing on "re-election," I've just shifted the idea of what benefits politicians, personally, the most. But I still think it's more complicated than "I'm rich so I'm gonna make a bunch of pro-rich laws."

And why did you make your >< like that?

[Jeffery]

My >< button is broke.

And how would it be impossible??? They have broken the system down so that, even with estate ta>< (which will be gone pretty soon) and the limited progressive ta>< that is supposed to be in place (but with loopholes the rich get out of more of it more often than not), the system is less harsh on the rich now than it was in the 70's. (you know, when it was "more progressive")
Trickle down economics is nothing but an e><cuse to give themselves ta>< breaks while claiming it will help the little guy.


As for elections and re-elections, 95% of what a politician says is bullshit. Add another 25% to that during election speeches and you should figure out how much to believe of what they say.

[Northwind]

My >< button is broke.

And how would it be impossible??? They have broken the system down so that, even with estate ta>< (which will be gone pretty soon) and the limited progressive ta>< that is supposed to be in place (but with loopholes the rich get out of more of it more often than not), the system is less harsh on the rich now than it was in the 70's. (you know, when it was "more progressive")
Trickle down economics is nothing but an e><cuse to give themselves ta>< breaks while claiming it will help the little guy.


As for elections and re-elections, 95% of what a politician says is bullshit. Add another 25% to that during election speeches and you should figure out how much to believe of what they say.
But my point was that HOW would the 70's progressive tax system ever have been voted in place, if it was as simple as rich people voting against taxes for rich people?

As for your "trickle down economics" comment, I agree completely. Except that it's not just themselves. After all, WE (well, not you and I, but you know what I mean) voted them in to do that to us. Thus, the explanation has to be more complex than you're making it out to be.

And I never said "believe everything politicians say." That would be absurd. I'm just saying that there's more going on than simply looking out for their own interests. And, there are definately politicians who actively vote against the interests of the rich. Not enough to swing things, granted, but still.

[Jeffery]

Because the system has not always been as completely corrupt as it is now.

See, at one time the people of the nation actually mattered. Now if you don;t have a million dollars to donate to "their campaign" you ain't got a damn thing they will listen to.

[OFFLINE]

whatsa the IRS?

[Jeffery]

Infernal Retart Services

[OFFLINE]

oh then who cares bout that?

[EatMine]

After all, WE (well, not you and I, but you know what I mean) voted them in to do that to us.Serious question, I'm interested in your opinion. Don't you think the lack of "better" candidates is intended?

And, there are definately politicians who actively vote against the interests of the rich.But as soon as they become successfull, they get "Spitz'd". :(

I think the problem, be it with taxes or whatever, is most of the times not the system per se, but it's always the corruption, which it inherently allows or does not penalize. Pretty frustrating.

[Northwind]

Serious question, I'm interested in your opinion. Don't you think the lack of "better" candidates is intended?

But as soon as they become successfull, they get "Spitz'd". :(
I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking whether or not I think it's intentional that we are offered sub-par candidates? If that's your question, I guess it leads to wondering about what "intentional" means and WHO would be doing the intending. I actually don't think it's orchestrated in any organized sense. I think we often get candidates that are the least threatening to the masses. Often, to make someone palatable to a broad range of people, they have to lose whatever was originally distinctive about them to begin with. It's kind of like fast food - in order to make it appeal to "everybody" they have to make it cheap and bland and not very good for you - and otherwise only a limited number of people are likely to be interested.
I think the problem, be it with taxes or whatever, is most of the times not the system per se, but it's always the corruption, which it inherently allows or does not penalize. Pretty frustrating.
Now I have a question for you. If it is not "the system per se," then what is it that allows the corruption to continue. And do you think that there is any realistic way to remove the corruption from the system? Are there any examples of systems that are not corrupted? And, if there are less-corrupted systems, what do you think encourages or allows this?

[R G]

Funny. Every ta>< break that gets passed by the government has to do with ta breaks for the rich.
So it does kinda go "gee, I'm rich, so I'm going to vote low taxes for the rich."

It's like why you will never see serious campaign finance reforms. The very people getting elected are getting elected by abusing the system as it is, and they have no reason, nor want, to change it.

If the rich get all the tax breaks then explain this: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0209frilets096.html

Tax breaks for rich an illusion
Feb. 9, 2007 12:00 AM

The IRS has released statistics from 2004 tax returns: The top 1 percent of income earners paid 37 percent of all income taxes, up from 34 percent the year before, even though they reported only 19 percent of the total income.

The bottom 50 percent of filers paid just 3.3 percent of total income tax, down from 3.5 percent the year before. That's the lowest figure in recent years.

With the highest income earners shouldering 10 percent more of the tax burden and the lower income earners shouldering 10 percent less of the tax burden, I'm still waiting for someone to show me how the "rich" get all the tax breaks and the lower income earners pay more. So much for the theory of the Bush tax breaks for the rich. - Robert Elmer, Gilbert

[Realist]

Hey Eatmine, I've been curious on the CT perspective on the Spitzer case since you mentioned it in the other thread. Do you think Mr. spend-$80,000-on-prostitutes "enemy to the rich" was framed, or just that everyone does stuff like that and only the good guys get caught?

[Mentality]

Funny fact.

There is no law saying you have to pay taxes..

Just saying.

[Jeffery]

If the rich get all the tax breaks then explain this: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0209frilets096.html

Tax breaks for rich an illusion
Feb. 9, 2007 12:00 AM

The IRS has released statistics from 2004 tax returns: The top 1 percent of income earners paid 37 percent of all income taxes, up from 34 percent the year before, even though they reported only 19 percent of the total income.

The bottom 50 percent of filers paid just 3.3 percent of total income tax, down from 3.5 percent the year before. That's the lowest figure in recent years.

With the highest income earners shouldering 10 percent more of the tax burden and the lower income earners shouldering 10 percent less of the tax burden, I'm still waiting for someone to show me how the "rich" get all the tax breaks and the lower income earners pay more. So much for the theory of the Bush tax breaks for the rich. - Robert Elmer, Gilbert
When you go look at the fact that they paid 37% of the taxes, and made more than that in income, then you'll get an idea that % does not = amount.

And endless, there are dozens of laws at local, state and federal level requiring you to pay and file taxes. There is an entire Title in federal law for taxes.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html

Federal law, title 26.

[Mentality]

Yeah.

Is all i have to say to that.

[Jeffery]

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/481925/americans_are_not_required_by_law_to.html

Is all i have to say to that.
http://paynoincometax.com/
Yeah, and yet there are people in prison for being stupid enough to believe that.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm
I see your one anti-tax nutjob, and raise you with reality.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2007/06/24/browns_say_no_to_taxes_historians_say_yes/
Again, someone makes your claim. Goes to jail. And, get this, the scholars say they are full of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_statutory_arguments
Prfetty well laid out gicing specific court cases as well as federal codes.

[R G]

When you go look at the fact that they paid 37% of the taxes, and made more than that in income, then you'll get an idea that % does not = amount.


If they are paying 37% of the entire tax burden then I don't see what makes you think they are getting all of these tax breaks...add to it the fact that the lower 50% are only paying 3.3% of the entire tax burden. Surely you don't think that the top 1% makes more than the bottom 50%.

[Jeffery]

If they are paying 37% of the entire tax burden then I don't see what makes you think they are getting all of these tax breaks...add to it the fact that the lower 50% are only paying 3.3% of the entire tax burden. Surely you don't think that the top 1% makes more than the bottom 50%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States


Pretty basic explanation. But if the top % is making 1/3 of all income, then yes, I'd expect them to be paying 1/3 the taxes.

Median income for the US is I think 48,000 right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.svg
Notice those at the top make FAR MORE than those at the bottom. So even though they are fewer in number, of course they pay more in taxes.


perhaps I can even make it simple enough for you.

You have 100
I have 1

You pay 37 in taxes. I pay .50

Gee, you paid more taxes overall, but less % of your income than I did.

[EatMine]

I actually don't think it's orchestrated in any organized sense.Yes, that's what I wanted to know, thanks. (I read a lot of "alternative news" and sometimes it's good to hear common sense, just to "adjust with reality" and to see how far I'm already out there :)

Now I have a question for you. If it is not "the system per se," then what is it that allows the corruption to continue. And do you think that there is any realistic way to remove the corruption from the system? Are there any examples of systems that are not corrupted? And, if there are less-corrupted systems, what do you think encourages or allows this?Well, the people!
The other questions are pretty tough though, haven't really thought about this yet. In principle: no, not removable, cause corruption is imho inherent to humans. Only containable: short-term probably only with severe punishment, long term "education, education, education" and free press. Give me some time, so that I can come up with a better answer to these questions.


The top 1 percent of income earners paid 37 percent of all income taxes, up from 34 percent the year before, even though they reported only 19 percent of the total income.
The bottom 50 percent of filers paid just 3.3 percent of total income tax, down from 3.5 percent the year before. Jeffery just said it, but I wrote it already too :) Those percentages mean nothing. In a progressive tax system it is inevitable that rich people pay more "percentual" than the poor ones.
And the rise in percentage, that you want to use as an argument for increased tax burden, actually comes from the rise in unfair allocation of total income. Richer people earned way more than the year before, while poor people still earn nothing. So yes, rich people payed a little more taxes (in absolute numbers, due to much higher income), but it's not - like you want to tell us - that their tax rate increased.
But screw this, the real joke is that 1% of the people get 19% of the whole cake.

Hey Eatmine, I've been curious on the CT perspective on the Spitzer case since you mentioned it in the other thread. Do you think Mr. spend-$80,000-on-prostitutes "enemy to the rich" was framed, or just that everyone does stuff like that and only the good guys get caught?Both.
I don't really have a CT perspective, since I only read two short news articles about the whole thing.
But first of all: Mr. "spend-$80,000-on-prostitutes enemy to the rich" busted dozens of big companies for price arrangements, sued "Wall Street" management and lots of other corrupt Heads from Finance/Banks/Insurance institutions, forced the RIAA to actually pay their artists, started investigations on corrupt police officials and did a lot of other stuff like this according to wikipedia. So, your witty remarks about his spendings won't change the fact, that he is an "enemy of the rich" :)
Everybody is free to think what he wants about prostitution, to me personally it is perfectly fine, if someone decides (without force) to sell and someone thinks it's worth it. But if this guy gets busted for this, it tells me, that his enemies absolutely got nothing on him. No corruption scandal, no tax fraud, no weird financing of his campaing ... nothing! Come on, prostitution? That's ridiculous.
Ok, CT-appropriate I of course don't have any proofs or facts, but from the two articels I read (BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7290071.stm) and NY Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/03072008/news/regionalnews/5g_hr__hookers_100827.htm)) I get these intersting information: "The investigation began last year when banks reported ..." Well, banks reported, what a coincidence!!1! And the other one: "additionally to his American passport, they found two Israeli passports in the home of the alleged prostitution ring leader". Yeah, right! You sure can buy those kind of things in every dark corner in New Jersey :rolleyes: To me, this means this guy had backup from high officials. If this doesn't smell like set-up, I don't know.

[Realist]

There's one big problem with the framing hypothesis. The guy admitted it (or at least, didn't deny it, and resigned because of it, which is the same thing). It's hard to concoct a story that would explain why he'd admit it if he was framed.

You can go on all you want about whether buying $5000 sex matters or not, but remember that Spitzer himself prosecuted prostitution rings. It's obviously a big deal in the US. If you think sex life should be separate from political life, fine, but that doesn't have any bearing on whether someone was out to get him for political reasons--and even if someone was, he had to be guilty first for them to be successful. If you want to be an enemy of the rich, it probably wouldn't hurt to be clean. :)

By the way, do you think Larry Craig and Mark Foley were framed because they were dangers to the rich also, or do you take the CT position only when someone you like gets caught?

[meat.eater]

Everybody is free to think what he wants about prostitution, to me personally it is perfectly fine, if someone decides (without force) to sell and someone thinks it's worth it. But if this guy gets busted for this, it tells me, that his enemies absolutely got nothing on him. No corruption scandal, no tax fraud, no weird financing of his campaing ... nothing! Come on, prostitution? That's ridiculous.

Slightly off-topic but:

Just because one is free to think what he wants about any given topic doesn't make the topic right or wrong to do, or make anything less illegal. So, it doesn't really matter what he was "caught" for.

PS. Thousands of people choose to sell, sure, but I'm sure tons of people who think it's "worth it" to buy could carry STD's or think it easy to simply victimize and rob a prostitute. Or, perhaps worse--fulfill sexual fantasies that involve violence and/or masochism that a prostitute does not expect. Prostitution isn't just a walk in the park "hey, let's pay for it and do it for an hour," it's actually an incredibly dangerous job. Prostitution laws are in place not to prevent people from having sex, people can do that just fine on their own, they are to protect people's safety. Being busted for prostitution (on either end) is a pretty serious offense, not just a cop-out to frame someone with (though I dont argue that people do a lot of digging to find pointless stuff). What I'm saying is, while you argue that it's lame that he got busted for prostitution, something not involved at all, I'm saying that just because it isnt involved doesn't excuse him from it. Whether people are lamely pinning it on him at an opportune moment or not, if there is proof of him doing it, he should be treated accordingly.

Once again, bit of a tangent and I apologize, I just felt that needed to be said.

[Jeffery]

Whether or not anyoen thinks it SHOULD be illegal, the fact remains it is illegal. Illegal enough that he made an entire career out of prosecuting people for this crime.

He's busted, and he will end up being prosecuted. For more than simply hiring a hooker. The conspiracy he committed in such an elaborate manner to hide the money transfer....

As for it being strange that it was his bank that brought attention to this....
No shit. Banks are required to investigate bizzarre money transfers. The entire reason this happened was because they thought they were too smart.

[Northwind]

Now that this thread has (kind of) turned into a prostitution thread (aren't they all), I thought I'd throw this into the ring. I was talking with a friend of mine last night who mentioned that Sweden had recently outlawed prostitution (I think it was previously legal there, as it is in a number of European countries). Anyway, what Sweden has apparently done is to make pimping a severely punished crime. The prostitutes aren't prosecuted, but the pimps,who profit overwhelmingly from the dangerous work of prostitution, are nailed to the wall (figuratively, unfortunately).

At the same time, when prostitutes are caught they are given education about how they are being exploited and then offered free job training (in something other than prostitution). I've never thought that it made much sense to make prostitution illegal, as it just drives it underground and makes it even more dangerous. However, if it's going to be outlawed this seems like a reasonable and workable model - punish the people actually profiting from the system and offer the women forced into it (economically or otherwise) other options.

Why can't America make this much sense regarding this?

[R G]

***oops***

[R G]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States


Pretty basic explanation. But if the top % is making 1/3 of all income, then yes, I'd expect them to be paying 1/3 the taxes.

Median income for the US is I think 48,000 right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.svg
Notice those at the top make FAR MORE than those at the bottom. So even though they are fewer in number, of course they pay more in taxes.


perhaps I can even make it simple enough for you.

You have 100
I have 1

You pay 37 in taxes. I pay .50

Gee, you paid more taxes overall, but less % of your income than I did.

There are more holes in that explaination than Swiss Cheese. First of all the tax rate is of course higher for those that make more....I could look it up, but I know you can too. Then add in the fact that the top 1 percent don't even make 20 percent from everything I have seen.

Now I would love to be in the top 1 percent of wage earners and even if I did pay more then I doubt if I would care...being that I would be richer than sheot.

Point is the "banner" that alot of politicians are carrying about the "rich don't pay their fair share" is nothing more than creating class envy to get votes for stupid saps that believe that crap.

[Realist]

At the same time, when prostitutes are caught they are given education about how they are being exploited

That's rather pretentious.

[Blexican]

That's rather pretentious.

i believe hes going on majority, not really characterized them all.

[EatMine]

@Spitzer:
I agree with you guys, that if he gets caught commmiting a crime, he should be prosecuted. With "free to think what you want" I just meant, that meeting expensive young girls in nice hotel rooms isn't very high on my personal corruption list, as long as the fee is paid with private money and not the tax payer's dollars. But of course, if you're too lazy to fly to Nevada, then you'll have to bear the consequences.

Realist, I didn't say he didn't do it. I just have a hard time to believe that Gov. Spitzer of all people is dumb enough to not hide it sufficiently. I guess the "framing" was more like, he got the number of this "discreet service" from a "good friend", his bank immediately "had to inform" IRS when he got $4000 from ATM and the FBI already was prepared for his telephone call. Set up, not foisted upon him. I mean, after all it was called a ring, where are the other clients?
Other than that, I don't have much sympathy for him. It's not like I only care, when I like someone. First priority is, that all those corrupt parasites get their fair share, no matter whether they are Democrats or Republicans. Though if I could choose between him and his "enemies", I'd rather have them dismissed, since their "corruption" is higher on my list, than a tryst with a woman.

Point is the "banner" that alot of politicians are carrying about the "rich don't pay their fair share" is nothing more than creating class envy to get votes for stupid saps that believe that crap.No, class envy is created by the crappy fact, that one stupid sap works 40 years/50 hours a week and barely pulls through, and the other stupid sap has a lot of fun in college fraternities, then assumes office fom his father's buddies, after a few years gets caught spending $80,000 with beautiful girls and then lives a nice life in southern France.
Last week I saw the tax computation of a local politician. This guy earned more than twice as much as me in 2006, but I still payed more taxes than him due to special tax breaks for delegates and his wife having "negative rental income" from the house he lives in. So much about fair share.

[R G]

No, class envy is created by the crappy fact, that one stupid sap works 40 years/50 hours a week and barely pulls through, and the other stupid sap has a lot of fun in college fraternities, then assumes office fom his father's buddies, after a few years gets caught spending $80,000 with beautiful girls and then lives a nice life in southern France.
Last week I saw the tax computation of a local politician. This guy earned more than twice as much as me in 2006, but I still payed more taxes than him due to special tax breaks for delegates and his wife having "negative rental income" from the house he lives in. So much about fair share.

The example you point out only supports the Fair Tax....call your congress person and tell em that you want to see the Fair Tax passed.

I have never heard of special tax breaks for delegates, but I never looked into the issue either.

Also I am sure someone reading your comments could say I can't believe that SOB makes half of what a politician makes and comes here on a forum and plays online games....Point is this is there is nothing that stops you from doing the same thing if you want.

[EatMine]

Yes there is.

Hey Eatmine, I've been curious on the CT perspective on the Spitzer casebrought to you by your favourite CTst Greg Palast (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/03/the-200-billion-bail-out-for-predator-banks-and-spitzer-charges-are-intimately-linked/). (probably boring for you, cause no real evidence to debunk :) )

[Realist]

Yes there is.

brought to you by your favourite CTst Greg Palast (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/03/the-200-billion-bail-out-for-predator-banks-and-spitzer-charges-are-intimately-linked/). (probably boring for you, cause no real evidence to debunk :) )

Not exactly boring, but sadly incoherent. Almost as bad as the mainstream press. How exactly was Spitzer going to stop the fed from bailing out Wall Street? :\ I doubt he would even want to. And what would they have done if he didn't choose to buy sex, assassinate him? I wish the CTers had a little more imagination.