Skronk, I may be a snob, but you're just uninformed.
And yes, I have read your posts. My guess is that you are probably very young, and think your tax burden is just awful, when you have no idea.
You call call me a snob for that one too.

I'm not bracketing anyone when I say poor people don't pay taxes.
Poor people, as Steve has pointed out, make little or nothing, so they are not taxed unless they buy malt liquor and pay 6-7% on that purchase.
Remove that 6-7%, which Paul is NOT proposing, I might add, and people are still poor. An income tax reduction does NOTHING for them.

You know what does? Progressive taxation.
Don't tax the *working* poor.
Tax the poeple in the lower SES very modestly
Tax the middle class a little more
Tax the upper middle class as they are now
Tax the wealthy a lot

That means everyone gets to be poor for free. You say you are poor, so you scored under that system, but I doubt you know what poor really is. You have plenty of time to post to this board from your computer, which clues me in to a few things about you.

The middle class get to live the dream and give a little back.

The rich have to work harder to get rich. I doubt a guy making $600k and getting taxed at 32%, which is what I currently pay, as a middle class person, but not what he would pay under the current system, would say "oh jesus, what's the point?" and stay home.
No, he'd just have to do with one less car and only two vacation homes.

The lie is predicated on the fact that anyone can get flithy rich.
That's bullshit, but it keeps the middle class aligned with the rich, thus helping them get their tax cuts at America's peril.
The middle class SHOULD align themselves with... the middle class. We make this country run.

Make it easier to become middle class, which anyone should be proud to be. Make it harder to become filthy rich. The justification is that one does not, I'll say again, make big money in a vacuum, they make it, at that level, with the aid of the infrastructure that tax payers have built and should give back.

-A

I'm not entirely sure anyone in this thread talking about the poor has a grasp on what it means to be poor.

I live in a city that has what's been called Canada's worst neighbourhood, and while it lacks the vastness of a place like East Hastings in Vancouver, North Central and the nearby Core area are incredibly shitty places to live. I hear the word "slum lord" more often than any person should. I know that we have a small number of murders but they're the second highest per capita in the nation. We're a hotbed of meth activity.

I worked as a delivery person for a thrift store for a few months. My job consisted of keeping the store clean, listening to the kind yet terminally insane woman who employed me and driving a truck around. The truck collected donations from individuals to return to the store, and it took purchases out to people who bought them. Because it was a charity it could afford to sell most of its items for a fairly low price so that the poor could afford it. Some day, stories. But for right now, I really only have one thing to say.

You think that being middle class is poor?

Fuck you.

I've seen poverty. I've seen third-world conditions in Canada. I know what poor is by having been immersed in its stench and its squalor and trying to do what I can to keep afloat a charity that's helping people get on their fucking feet and use the government's welfare money to provide for their families, and being in a middle-class tax bracket isn't poor, not by a long shot.

And these are people who pay taxes and get huge tax rebates because they fall into a low tax bracket and that's how low tax brackets work.

Getting rid of income tax will make the rich richer. That's it. Sorry.

Rick Reuben wrote:'number of posts'

I don't see that as a point that was made. Computer and ISP come to mind as a point, but "number of posts"? Oh wait, he used the word time! Sorry, forgot it was you Bob. Go for anything you can find to manipulate and exploit in order to justify your tirelessly weak arguments.

You have proven yourself once again to be nothing more than a lifeless penis.

yours truly,

Nate

Johnny C wrote:You think that being middle class is poor?

Fuck you.

I've seen poverty. I've seen third-world conditions in Canada. I know what poor is by having been immersed in its stench and its squalor and trying to do what I can to keep afloat a charity that's helping people get on their fucking feet and use the government's welfare money to provide for their families, and being in a middle-class tax bracket isn't poor, not by a long shot.

What? Who said being middle class is poor? I said much of the middle class is on the edge. They may not be the example of poor you're looking for, but it's a damned shame, none the less.

Not as much of a damned shame as living in The Empire Hotel.

Much of the middle class being on the edge is different. They're not poor. Reducing income tax won't do a whole lot to change that and it'll rip away any safety net they have if their income collapses. A restructuring of where that money goes, however, will ensure that the vast majority of those "living on the edge" won't have nearly as much to worry about should they teeter over.

It's not an example of the poor I'm looking for. What I described is poor, plain and simple. It's not an example. It's abject poverty.

Does anyone care about a presidential candidate's preference on abortion or gay marriage?

Nothing is going to be done because of the president, either way. Especially one in favor of state's rights.

I'll tell all about how "more government" helps the poor next time I don't have to pay for breaking my leg or catching food poisoning.

Oh, and next time I'm paying reduced council tax directly to the council rather than hiked income tax.

Oh, and when I get assistance paying for school.

Oh, and when I get decent employee rights.

Oh, and when my savings go into government secured accounts and I manage to beat interest.

And when I'm out of work and I can claim back my national insurance and have jobseekers support.

Those are all solutions to problems created by the pre-20th century economy and social system. None of those problems were created by the Rothschild or the banking cartel.

This thread is page after page of libertarians giving the same two responses, either you appeal to inevitability. Which is false logic, and betrays a bunch of prejudices about people on all sides. Or you challenge the "fake left" to demand proof that you're wrong, when the burden of proof always rests firmly with the case to be proven.

Rick Reuben wrote:

steve wrote: You've never seen poverty then. They're poor because they have nothing.

That's not true, unless you've invented a new definition for nothing. The vast majority of the poor have many, many things. If they didn't, there would be rioting. They're still poor, in relation to the rich. But they are not garbage-picking poor, sleeping in refrigerator boxes. Those are the homeless, a different category.

This is based on 2002 census data. I could have found something newer if I looked longer, but this seems ballpark enough:

Poverty threshold

* Single person: $9,183

* Two person household: $11,756

* Three person household: $14,348

* Four person household: $18,392

Compiled from Census Bureau:

* Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

* Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

* Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

steve wrote:If you actually believed this, you couldn't support Paul's plan for a sales tax

You should look into his sales tax plan. According to what I know, the NST ( national sales tax ) plan that he supports includes this:

A universal rebate for every household, exempting all consumption up to the poverty level. That would mean that the first $18,588 of consumption each year for a family of four would be tax-free.

If you're house is mortgage you don't own it, you own less than the value of your house. The same is true of your car, the same is true of your domestic goods if they are bought on credit.

If income doesn't meet outgoing expense, you also have less than nothing.

nihil wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:'number of posts'

I don't see that as a point that was made. Computer and ISP come to mind as a point, but "number of posts"? Oh wait, he used the word time! Sorry, forgot it was you Bob. Go for anything you can find to manipulate and exploit in order to justify your tirelessly weak arguments.

Exactly:
-Time to post
-Constant access to a computer - I doubt the regular posters here are doing their work from the Community Center's 486
-Constant access to a 'net connection.

When I say "poor" I'm talking about people who don't have these simple opportunities. Even the working poor, a term I've used to distinguish one SES from the totally destitute, are probably not posting to the PRF.

Just a hunch.

So, read it as a cheap shot if you like.

Call me a snob if it makes you happy. This snob is in favor of paying taxes and helping my fellow man with the revenue. This country needs serious help and infrastructure work right now, and I'm willing to pony up.

Typical of Libertarians, who tend to think every problem is simply solved, and some of the conservative rhetoric they co-opt, apparently I'm a snob because I happily pay my taxes; my dues for being a citizen, which amounts to over 1/3 of my income, before you add in our town's bonds and my property tax. A tax rate, I might add, that many developed countries would consider modest.
The people who want to rescind this, in Libertarian World, are fighting for the poor, while I'm somehow kicking them in the teeth with my know-it-all "morals" and stuff.

I want this money to be used to make my country and town better, and to "nanny," the less fortunate, because I feel it's the charge of the people who are lucky enough to have everything they need to help out those who don't.

Obviously my concern is that the money is used for things that help people, in the most efficient way possible. The fact that it's not is an issue of political priorities. It doesn't mean we need to shit can the idea of collecting the money.

Wow, I sure am a fucking snob for wanting people the get help.

-A

syntaxfree07 wrote:Does anyone care about a presidential candidate's preference on abortion or gay marriage?

Nothing is going to be done because of the president, either way. Especially one in favor of state's rights.

Maybe not directly, but remember, we have a few justices that may be retiring soon (Stevens comes to mind, the man is nearly 90) Someone like Paul could in theory nominate a justice of his liking (i.e. strong on states rights). I doubt any of the conservative voices on the court would argue against letting the states decide the issue of abortion or gay marriage. In my home state, I guarantee that these two things would be quickly outlawed. In a sense, yes the president can do something about these issues, if he is determined enough to accomplish them. Would Congress stand in the way? Perhaps, but I haven't seen Congress have too much of a spine about anything lately.

I do not think I would like the kinds of justices Paul would probably nominate. I get a sinking feeling it would only reinforce the thinking of the constitutional nitwits Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas. (Unless its about drug issues)