I Hate Democrats

But not on any important premise, just one fact, which we interpret differently: "one cannot be a true Christian and practice US style conservatism."

More importantly, one cannot be a true Christian and practice US style personal liberty. According to Christ, we must forgive every injustice 490 times, notwithstanding speculation that the mathematically defined quantity 70x7 was a misinterpretation of Jesus' attempt at hyperbole, meaning that he actually espoused infinite forgiveness, which in practice means treating every action of every other person as amoral, thus offering ourselves up willingly as sacrificial victims to the immoral. Christianity is indeed rationally incompatible with human rights. How sad that you chose a mystical belief over the rational philosophy though, TheChas!

:(

Does one experience determine the course of your entire life, TheChas? How pathetic that would be!

All my comments in this post are in response to these comments by TheChas:

"Max,

As you are a temporary lost cause along the road to enlightenment, I no longer feel the need to mince my words and be polite.

I think I even understand the joy that Oz gets out of taunting you.

Once you encounter the person or life altering event that will lead you down the path of truth and enlightenment, I will be more civil in these ranting discourses."

Any thinking person would be unwilling to adopt an entirely new definition of truth, morality and enlightenment without defining how their new knowledge supercedes their previous assumptions and/or values, and a person with any pride (and cause for it!) would not admit to such a radical revision of their values without convincing evidence. So, if you wish to be taken seriously, you ought to explain the basis of your opinions, and admit the subjective nature of your personal experiences and interpretations, most importantly to yourself.

.
You know, AmericanVoter, putting all snipes and partisan politics aside, let me offer you this perspective. Our economy, which includes the "job market", is cyclical and changing in nature. It always has been, and it always will be. And as such, the "unemployment numbers" will rise and fall over time, depending on different factors in the economy. Moreover, they'll rise in one sector, and fall in another; they'll rise in one area, but fall in another; and so on.

The preverbal "buggy whip industry" is always used as an example of the changing dynamics of the American economy. But look at what the railroad industry used to be compared to what it is today. Can you imagine people today complaining that railroad jobs are disappearing? I think the next change in the economy will be with the automotive industry -- and it will be an absolutely HUGE change.

I'm going to make a prediction. The day will come when leftist loonies (okay, one political snipe), such as the ones making the most noise today about finding alternative energy sources, will be making just as much noise about auto workers losing their jobs -- and maybe even oil field workers losing theirs -- because we will have found and implemented alternative energy sources for our automobiles. They're the same loonies who are making noise today about manufacturing jobs going to Mexico, all the while our American economy is undergoing a transformation not unlike the one from an agricultural economy to an industrial one. And not only do entire industries undergo drastic change, but factors within industries change as well.

Change happens, dude. And there's nothing you or I can do about it. Unless, of course, you want a stagnant society. And the ones who can recognize it and adapt to it will see a ZERO unemployment rate, for all practical purposes. So you keep crying, and I'll keep recognizing the dynamics of the American economy, and never the two shall meet.

The bottom line is this. The unemployment numbers, whatever they are or aren't, are a result of some change in our economy. It doesn't matter what they are, unless, of course, you want to use it as a gauge to determine the number of people who look back instead of looking forward -- and the ones pandering to their fears, of course. You have only one choice in the matter. You can either take full and total self-responsibility in determining how you should adapt to the dynamic economy and society, or you can let some government, power-seeking bureaucrat take it for you. I choose the former, while you, apparently, choose the latter.

By the way, I find it quite humorous that you were citing the "giant sucking sound" concerning jobs going to Mexico, but the only first-hand observations you could make, and you emphasized first hand observations, were in the tech field, which aren't going to Mexico. You're full of contradictions, and you're full of creating false dilemmas.

I'm going to assume you're rather young, under 35. Change your outlook, dude, or spend the rest of your life mired in mediocrity.

pay attention to the employers of illegal immigrants instead of wasting money on the impossible "policing" of thousands of miles of border, there would be less incentive for millions of people to risk their lives to get into the US illegally. If only documented, legal immigrants could find work, the only immigrants would be legal, with a small number of exceptions (criminals) who would be much easier to catch.

Well didn't get much choice about birth, apparently neither did my parents (my brother and sister are 8yrs+ my senior, hmmmmmm).

Marriage, did it, bad idea, ALMOST did it again (mutual back out) PHEW! but death, tried it at least 4 times (not premeditated)and just keep living for some currently unkown reason, the biggie now is whether or not I have cancer, they can't seem to figure that out but life goes on...until it ends, and we don't really have control either way.

But yes, each is an INTENSE life altering situation and you sure as hell have to be careful what you wish for!

Leftists already hate themselves! My hate and yours are inconsequential to collectivists compared to the self-loathing that is the only cause of collectivism.

In context, I understand your choice of Carter. Why support the man who pardoned Richard Nixon? Wasn't it really a vote against Ford and the whole crew, many of whom were carryovers from the Nixon administration. I can understand that, I probably would have done the same.

As for Perot, I was never a huge fan, but I did like John Anderson in an earlier election.

It may shock you Max, but here in Canada, I have never voted for any other party than the conservative party. I have stayed home on occasion. I've also spent many hours working actively for the election of conservative members, and worked(even paid as an organizer) on the campaigns of leadership candidates.

I too have been unemployed, and collected for a short time-two weeks if I recall - I lived off severence while looking(EI not paid during severence) and thankfully it almost saw me through to the time when I could get a contract - which got me by till the next contract. My wife can't work due to a medical condition, and I did face the possibility of having to sell my house, despite the fact I kept up all my bill payments and mortgage payments. But the economy improved...

I have met many who aren't so lucky, who do want to work, but don't have the means to survive without unemployment insurance. In Canada, the rate is pretty low - $440 a week maximum. I was actively looking at jobs to pay the bills - for a hundred bucks I could get certified as a forklift driver (my city has a lot of warehouses so almost guarenteed a job) to get me by until I could find something permanent.

I consider job hunting to be a task as hard as many jobs, and it has to be tackled as such. Some people get lucky, some people have great connections, some people have bad timing. But in the end, while it may not be immediate, persistance and hard work pays off.

James

I apologize for not being able to post more comments in this thread.

I do have some thoughtful responses, just not enough time to post them.

Anyhow, Max, think about this:

A year ago I would not have even considered voting for Hillary Clinton for any office in any election.

Thanks to you, I am seriously considering fully supporting her campaign should she run for President.

How's that for unintended consequences.

Chas

Gee Max,

I guess it won't surprise you that aside from high school and college, the 2 times I have been on unemployment have been the best times of my life.

No stress,

No office politics,

Able to freely spend time with my family.

Our best family outings and memories are from when I was not working.

ALL of the bad events in my life have been directly tied to work issues.

I did not have the issue of standing in line with "losers" like you did.
I just had to mail in forms or call an 800 number and answer a few questions.

As soon as I can afford to not work again, I'll be away from the daily grind for good.

Chas

But a few messages later, TheChas says he'd like to earn enough to stop working. That day would come much sooner if he didn't fund a losing cause that will also work for to continue and increase his servitude to the collective, especially the worst members of it.

.
I think you missed my point. What did you think my point was?

While Democrats traditionally take more of my money [i]for subsidies of the least productive members of society,[/i] the Republican Party, and especially the GWB sect of evangelical extremists would leave me nothing to buy with my money but Bibles, anti-abortion bombs and anti-gay propaganda. Neither party has legitimate claim to a consistent, moral position. Each is more moral on certain issues, less so on others. The moral choice as a citizen is to support neither.

To Maxwell's response advocating [i]competition in public schools[/i] and the option to permit religious observances in some: disingenuous. You know that government support for religion is prohibited by the Constitution. It is hypocritical to expect the protection of your property rights while advocating the violation of my right to be free of religion. I'll extend you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven't considered these two issues in this light, but your defense of personal property [i]is[/i] logically and morally incompatible with your (and GWB's) support for state support of religion, and I eagerly await an articulate revision of this inconsistency on your part.

And in anticipation of the asinine premise that freedom [i]of[/i] religion does not require freedome [i]from[/i] religion (which I've encountered, surprisingly, even on TechRepublic in the past, not from Max): everybody who exercises their First Amendment Right to practice the religion of their choice is able to do so because they are free [i]from[/i] the imposition of [i]every[/i] other religion. I insist on the same right to be free [i]from[/i] imposition of every religion other than my own. Which one is that? That is a private matter.

Public schools consistently spend more money per student, with inferior results by all standardized measures, to Catholic schools in the same areas. It probably isn't magic (God, Holy Phantom, Invisible Pink Unicorn or Flying Spaghetti Monster) that's responsible. So, could it be that Catholic students are from wealthier families? If you believe that, Google it. I dare you to compare whether academic performance is more strongly correlated to family wealth or to attendance at schools that are not publicly funded.

It's a shame that such a preponderance of private schools are Catholic because I'd like to remove religion from the equation, but anybody who looks carefully and honestly at the available data will conclude that public education is consistently inferior to private education -- not in every case, but very nearly. The notable exception used to be magnet schools, which have been the first to be cut when the public day care system for underachievers (aka the public school system as a whole) was underfunded.

A tragic irony is that the same religious "right" cult claims to be concerned with the lives of the unborn, while ignoring the [b]facts[/b] that prove that they are condemning their own living, born children to poverty by their insistence that the government exists to enforce their inane beliefs based only on [b]faith[/b].

Unfortunately, the myth that capitalism hurts the poor prevails when the opposite is true. Take the minimum wage as an excellent example. If the minimum wage was $1,000 per hour, would we all be rich? No! We would all be unemployed! The government causes unemplyment for the poor when the minimum wage is set above the market wage. Right now, is it nice and low. An unskilled worker can get a job at in-n-out for $10 per hour here in Phoenix. No need to a minimum wage at all.

Why don't you do just that?

Maxwell has already indicated that he is seriously considering standing for public office in the future.

waiting for a consistent response from Absolutely.

After advertising loudly and widely in two other discussions his commitment to atheism, in another post in this discussions he has stated:

"..... every religion other than my own. Which one is that? That is a private matter."

So in one discussion he is very publicly an atheist, and now suddenly his personal religion is a secret.

I totally agree with you that parents should have the choice of having their children's education include or exclude religion.

As part of my seconday school education was at an Anglican private school, there was no escaping religion.

But that was long ago. There are many private schools in the area of Sydney in which I live, and I come into contact with many of the students who work part-time in takeaways or come into the cafe where I have my late lunch. I will enquire as to what the current situation is, but I would make an educated guess that participation in religious classes is not compulsory.

Since I don't advocate (or hope or cheer for, or predict in Pat Robertson's vindictive way) the KILLING of religious people for being religious, I hope I earn no more than a -9 on your Religious Zealometer. (I'm trying to take your advice and lighten up a bit. It would be good for my heart.)

I hold the premise is that parents have the right [b]and the responsibility[/b] to pay for their children's education, as has been the tradition through the majority of US history. Nobody is entitled to steal from bachelors and bachelorettes who have made a valid lifestyle choice to forego reproduction in favor of frequent sex purely for enjoyment. The value altruists, especially mystics, place on the suffering and endurance of childbirth is not a value that I share, but I acknowledge the right of all women to choose to give birth as a valid lifestyle choice. I just don't agree that suffering entitles anybody to take what I earned, the chosen suffering of childbirth included.

The system of public education is a [b]problem[/b], not an excuse to make more problems. It was founded on the collectivist premise that the good of the "community" is the concern of every member of the collective. The good of each individual is the responsibility of that individual, not of the whole collective. Morality demands reciprocity, which means that no individual benefits at the expense of the collective, or any subset of it.

I'll agree eagerly to being extreme on this issue, but only as much as I'm extreme on every other example of the issue of individual rights. Mediocrity is unremarkable. Extreme ineptitude or stupidity is lamentable. Extreme talent and intelligence are commendable. I'm proud to be extreme for the same reason that the signers of the Declaration of Independence were proud to put their names on that extreme statement of liberty: I know that I'm right.

.
But I guess I pressed your hot-button - Geesh, lighten up!

I will elaborate on one thing, however. You and I are in total agreement, and I, too, would like to see all government nanny programs abolished in one fell swoop, including the government run schools. I also agree with you that it's both a parental right and a parental obligation to educate their own kids, however they see fit, AND TO PAY FOR IT THEMSELVES, not forcing the rest of society to do it for them. Geesh, we agree on those things, already, and I thought you realized that. I wish I could snap my fingers and make those things happen. Or I wish I could advance such an agenda with all my resolve and force such a change. But I also wish I could fly!

There are two ways to approach these types of issues, and both are a matter of one's starting point. The first, of course, is to proceed as though we're starting from scratch, designing the perfect and preferred system. The other is to recognize where we are right now, and start from there. And in the case of the public education, considering we are starting in 2005, not 1795, I would have a better chance of flying than abolishing the whole system.

And even if one's goal is to abolish the entire public education system, and even if a person plans to work diligently towards that end, the question of the best approach just can't be ignored. If you espouse its abolishment by constitutional amendment, presidential decree, by a vote of the majority, or by whatever means you can imagine, well guess what? It ain't gonna' happen. And if you insist on trying to implement your all or nothing approach, it'll drive you crazy enough to perhaps make you want try to flying -- right off a tall building.

We got to where we are today with baby-steps, and the most practical approach back to the beginning is also with baby-steps. And while you might consider that approach "in the toilet", it's your ideas and your voice that are being flushed. Extremist-radicals are simply dismissed as irrational wing-nuts. The only hope of instigating any type of change is to appear rational, present realistic ideas, and not be dismissed. Yea, you might feel-good about sticking to your principles with your all-or-nothing stance, but be prepared to spend your life being dismissed as an irrational wing-nut. Whereas I try to find a balance between my principles and today's reality, you seem to bypass reality in favor of your all-or-nothing demands. All too often, in these kinds of discussions, the two get confused.

By the way, when you leap from that building, be sure to flap your arms as hard as you can. The chances of you actually flying will be better than the chances of seeing the public education system abolished any time during either of our lifetimes.

And for the record, with a few isolated exceptions of being kind and respectful to friends and family on a few occasions, I haven't even gone into a church of any kind in probably 30 years. I don't claim to be anything ___________ (fill in the religious tag) in particular. And if you think I'm in a Pat Robertson type camp, you couldn't be more wrong. But I guess levying false charges against me helps you justify your lack of a reasonable response.

"And if you think I'm in a Pat Robertson type camp, you couldn't be more wrong. But I guess levying false charges against me helps you justify your lack of a reasonable response."

What false charges do you mean?

My response was fully reasoned. I described what ought to be, not the compromise that is the best likely scenario, and I'm glad you agree. But arguments on moral issues will not be won by entering with a compromise. They will be won by entering with a moral argument, establishing that we are right, then negotiating on the best way to get there.

PS I won't lighten up. My money is taken every day because of arguments based only on mysticism, altruism, and collectivism. Mysticism is what provides the veneer of respectability, by making morality an otherworldly issue. It's deadly serious, has been wrong for millenia, and will not go away by itself.

Do you think I care?

Also, TheChas seems to have the impression that you are an "ideologue", which I believe is not meant as a compliment of your good ideas. So, maybe your willingness to compromise and your efforts not to be overzealous are not having the effect you claim to be pursuing.

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=183299&messageID=1871021

A lot of Republicans babble about the same altruist "ideals" that characterize the left, when their district is the intended recipient of largesse. Compromise will encourage more compromise. When I'm right, I don't make compromises that help the persons who are wrong to pretend that they are not wrong. Compromises in speed of implementation of major cutbacks would be necessary. Compromise in the [b]argument[/b] that welfare is absolutely immoral is not acceptable. Got it?

.
....is a failure to communicate.

Okay, for the sake of argument, let's say I agree with you 100 percent, not only in principle, but in my zeal to implement it. You've convinced me. Therefore what?

What exactly do you propose we do to advance it, to guarantee it's implementation, and in what time frame can we expect to see it?

Give me a therefore what conclusion, and what, and when, and how we can expect to see it all become reality.

(And to answer Chas, which I didn't when he made that suggestion, I would correct him to say that I'm an idealist, not an ideologue, and a realist. But all that's besides the point.)

all our dollars are now worth half what they were in 1980 due to wonderful efforts of Greenspan to print money to 'prime the pump', and to keep big govt spending without raising taxes (which they did also) or borrowing from our grandchildren by increasing the national debt (which they went all out on)

It gets better: now ben bernanke will be in the office. his official policy? to not care about inflation, despite it hitting the poor who have harder time getting raises, and those on fixed incomes the hardest. Way to go to increase the rich/poor divide, US Govt!!

To the debt drunken US economy: we'll give you more of what caused your problem, to avoid a hangover.

There has been no failure to communicate.

Before I accept any "for sake of argument" scenarios, retract your statement that I am a zealot, comparable to Pat Robertson, only with a different agenda. If you truly disagree with his agenda and agree with your own (as stated on TR), you must acknowledge that I am right and Pat Robertson is absolutely wrong, therefore my insistence is justified and his is idiotic.

Then, and not before then, I'll consider your "therefore what" challenge.

.
Just like you, I stand by my comments. I'll retract nothing. I just call em' as I see em' And just because you don't like it doesn't mean I'll retract it.

Quite frankly, it's obvious I hit your friggin' hot-button, and, I must say, it's putting on a good show.

But I'm not surprised you don't feel up to answering my "therefore what" question. After all, you really can't answer it, since the only reasonable "therefore what" is the one I suggested.

50 eggs? I wonder if I can do it in an hour?

.
....could you give us a brief explanation about how the federal reserve determines the supply of dollars, inasmuch as how much is printed, when it's printed, how it relates to the GDP, and how it's balanced with the desire to control both inflation and deflation; and specifically what did Greenspan do that violated the rules of economics, as you outlined, that drives the economy?

Step 1 is gather support for the philosophy of individualism. I do not believe that is possible while making an exception for the most irrational belief of all just because it (religion) happens to be the most popular enemy of individuality. The timeframe and method will depend on how well and how quickly the case is made for the moral right to property ownership, not on how cunningly and flexibly compromises are offered.

.
Over 80 percent of Americans consider themselves to be, and call themselves Christians.

So let me get this straight. You suggest that you will, on one hand, literally demonize Christians; yet, on the other hand, you plan to recruit them into your idea of spreading the philosophy of individualism -- all based on the premise that "religion happens to be the most popular enemy of individuality".

Maybe you can get them to start praising the devil while you're at it.

A basic difference between you and me -- two basic differences, actually.

First of all, I don't fear Christians; I don't judge Christians; and I don't want to deny their right to worship and/or live however they see fit. You do -- on all three counts.

And second of all, I see Christian Americans as a vital part to spreading the philosophy of individualism. You see them as the enemy.

Like I said, you don't have a reasonable answer to spreading the philosophy of individualism, but I do. You aren't being reasonable, realistic, or tolerant. I am. And you've already stumbled over step one. You'll never make it to step two.

What have they done for you besides relieve you of money you earned, via Welfare and Social Security taxes? You do know you'll never see a penny of either yourself, right?

I missed your post...sorry to take so long to reply.

The goal of increasing income of the government serves 2 purposes:

1) To provide more services for all Americans
2) To relieve the national debt

However, there is one other thing that has to be done within our system to achieve those 2 things: get the idiots out of government who would waste that increase.

A flat tax of 10 percent with very few and limited deductions/exemptions would also increase the out-of-pocket tax burden for the working class American (those under $125,000 per year total household income), while reducing the amount of wealthy individuals able to pay for tax loopholes and get out of paying their share of the operation of our country.

You'd be amazed how little people like Bill Gates pay in taxes, from a percentage standpoint. If he, and those of his opulence, were to pay 10 percent of their annual net income, our country would be in a lot better shape financially within 25 years.

.
How does one go about convincing 100 million Americans (give or take), regardless of race, creed, color, sexual orientation, heritage, background, economic status, political agenda, etc., to dismiss the notion of a collectivist society, especially in the light of having lived under a collectivist society, to some degree or another, for the past fifty years, to favor an individualist, libertarian society?

Just how could a person (or persons) pull that off?

How would I answer that question?

I don't think it could be done overnight. I think it would take several generations, probably more. I think it would have to be a combination of convincing and coercion. I think it would have to be done within the current political party structure; I don't think a third-party could muster up enough steam to pull it off, especially considering the collective mind-set within the current parties' factions ("collectivist" referring to financial agenda or otherwise). But it would take powerful and concerted effort, a "grass-roots" effort, if you will, to muster a strong enough voice to start the wheels in motion.

Do I think it will happen? Not in my lifetime, it won't.

And that leads to one of my favorite questions, which is, therefore what?

Or is there another possibility to consider, such as a "state by state" movement -- a state (or states) literally threatening to secede from the union?

(This is an extension of the very interesting and spirited discussion tangent between Absolutely and me. But jump in, if you feel so inclined.)

.
https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=183299&messageID=1887159

Maxwell's is.

Out of one side of your mouth, you defend your right to keep your money, calling the actions of the welfare state theft from the person who earned money by people who did not. But out of the other side of your mouth, you tell me that when I defend the wealth I earned from theft by a different, overlapping group of people who also did not earn my wealth, I am a zealot. There is no rational basis for calling me a zealot unless you admit to being an economic zealot, as much a wing-nut as Mao, just on the other side of the spectrum. Logically, you are also much different in that you do not initiate the use of force (that I know), and that you are right to defend your wealth. The same are true of me though, and are more important distinctions from Pat Robertson than the fact that we both have strong, opposing views on religion. The single important fact is that mine are rational. Yours are also, on economics, with the exception of the economic role of churches.

ALL redistribution of wealth schemes are evil, not just those that operate according to amount of wealth. Schemes to redistribute wealth according to number of offspring or religious affiliation are equally evil. Faith-based initiatives are theft just as Welfare is theft. The entire collectivist-altruist game is based on justifying crime by claiming noble intentions, and whether a noble intention exists or not is irrelevant. How can you condone special treatment for churches and churchgoers that is not available to a full 20% of the population?

"Maybe you can get them to start praising the devil while you're at it."

They already worship evil in the form of indulging an unaccounted whim for redemption without any attempt to earn it. Reality does not work like that. Nor do I. Nor will I be coerced to support such an [b]abomination[/b] without protest.

"First of all, I don't fear Christians; I don't judge Christians; and I don't want to deny their right to worship and/or live however they see fit. You do -- on all three counts."

Liar.

Count 1, "I don't fear Christians": I don't fear Christians either. They're nothing but sissies. Like any other variety of collectivist herd animal, they travel in packs because of their terror of reality.

Count 2, "I don't judge Christians;": You should, it is their claim of the moral value of charity as the supreme moral value, an end in itself, that is responsible for the entire argument in favor of Welfare, the Davis-Bacon Act and all other government subsidies of underachievement. I do judge Christians. They are irrevocably evil, until they renounce their delusions and accept reality as the only valid realm to provide any standard of value. The purpose of mysticism is to evade aspects of reality that the mystics find unpleasant. Reality does not work like that. Their choice to seek to evade can only be achieved at somebody's expense. I'm not willing to foot their bill. You got one of three right. Not nearly good enough. Don't bother playing again.

Count 3, "and I don't want to deny their right to worship and/or live however they see fit. You do -- on all three counts.": I'm not interested in taking away anybody's rights, only in taking back mine. There is more to life than property. Ideas are important, and one thing worse than losing my property to subsidize a lifestyle I don't support (irresponsible laziness) is losing my property to subsidize [b]indoctrination[/b] to a worldview diametrically opposed to rationality: mysticism. But if a christian wants to worship nobody in the privacy of their own home, chuurch, or any other building it rightfully owns, purchased according to the single tax code applicable to people who are all truly equal, I don't care. I do object to re-interpreting the Constitution to support the idea that equality of all people is reconcilable with tax favors dependent on affiliation with religion. Equality is not reconcilable with that [b]abomination[/b].

"And second of all, I see Christian Americans as a vital part to spreading the philosophy of individualism."

Are you wearing rose-colored glasses, beer goggles or LSD to see that? Christian individuals, christian intellectuals and Jesus Christ are all as imaginary as the Easter Bunny.

"Like I said, you don't have a reasonable answer to spreading the philosophy of individualism, but I do."

You have to live it before you can spread it. Another Step 1 you're trying to skip.

if we see the entire IRS form (assuming he ever responds with an answer). Bill Gates gives millions away to charity which would be legal deductions so comparing his tax rate to anyone else's would have to take deductions and write-offs into consideration.

.
....you might also want to consider the tens of thousands of jobs created, all of which contribute to the national tax base.

For example, there are 61,000 people on the Microsoft payroll (not counting the related/caused jobs on other payrolls). If the average salary is (pulling some number out of the air) $50,000 (which is probably very low), the total payroll would be well over 3 billion; and if it's taxed at a rate of 20 percent (which is also probably low), that's well over 600 million in tax revenue. And that's not counting the combined 15 percent taken for social security, which would be an additional ~500 million (and no, there is no SS "trust fund"); and that doesn't consider the state and local taxes paid on those dollars, or the sales tax generated when those dollars are spent, or the property taxes paid when those dollars are used to purchase homes or other personal property, or the ........ and on it goes.

And what about the capital gains taxes paid by all of those people who've invested in Microsoft, thousands of whom are the very same Microsoft employees mentioned. I quit adding it up in my head, but it's in the billions of dollars, I'm sure, each and every year, maybe in the tens of billions when all things are considered.

WOW! Since 1983, how much money has the government (federal, state, and local) collected as a direct result of Bill Gates creating that little software company called Microsoft?

Not really making any particular point with this (like no, I'm not suggesting Gates shouldn't pay taxes), but it's interesting to consider when looking at the "bigger picture". Gates, for example, didn't stuff all that money into his mattress, but rather reinvested it back it into his business which, in turn, helped create all those jobs, which, in turn.......

Okay, so maybe I am making a point. (But not all people will "get it".)

Gates' salary, by the way, is only 1 million a year. All of his stated wealth is in the value of his stock holdings and the capital gains income that results when he sells some of his stock, which he certainly does from time to time.

And if you want to see how much of it he actually gives away, take a look at the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation Web site, or "Google it". Personally, I think Bill Gates is an incredible guy.

.
---------- Point One ----------

You said, "Out of one side of your mouth, you defend your right to keep your money, calling the actions of the welfare state theft from the person who earned money by people who did not. But out of the other side of your mouth, you tell me that when I defend the wealth I earned from theft by a different, overlapping group of people who also did not earn my wealth, I am a zealot."

First of all, I'm not sure which specific group of people you're talking about when you suggest that they're taking your hard-earned dollars; and I'm not sure of the exact context in which this specific group is taking it. Could you elaborate on this one point?

But on "talking from both sides of my mouth", I think this is what I mean when I suggested that when principle meets reality, a balance must be found. (And no, finding balance does not necessarily mean compromising principles.) We can't, for example, just wipe away all transfer-of-wealth programs in one fell swoop, and try as I might, I just can't do it. That's not a realistic thing to expect. And it just won't happen in today's reality. I see that, and I admit that. Do you challenge that assertion?

---------- Point Two ----------

You said, "There is no rational basis for calling me a zealot unless you admit to being an economic zealot, as much a wing-nut as Mao, just on the other side of the spectrum."

Okay, I admit to being an economic zealot, at least I am in the eyes of those who oppose my ideas; and I proudly proclaim that I'm on the other side of the spectrum than Mao Tse Tung. And if that makes me a zealous wing-nut, so be it. And since I admit it, therefore, according to your own statement, I DO have a rational basis for calling you a zealot in my context. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Definitions:

Zealot: One who is zealous, especially excessively so. A fanatically committed person.

Zealous: Filled with or motivated by zeal; fervent.

Zeal: Enthusiastic devotion to a cause, ideal, or goal and tireless diligence in its furtherance.

Fanatic: A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause

Is being a zealot always a bad thing? I don't think so, which is why I admit to being one who pursues my passion with a certain zeal. In my case, being "excessive" would only be suggested by those who espouse collictivism. And I don't care if they call me excessive or a zealot, because I do have an enthusiastic devotion to a cause, ideal, or goal and tireless diligence in its furtherance. What's wrong with that?

And please read "very carefully" all cases in which I said "wing-nut". I never directly called you a "wing-nut". I ALWAYS said something like, you don't want to give others the impression you're a wing-nut, meaning we have to be careful in how we present our ideas, and how we want to implement our ideas, or else others will dismiss us (dismiss you) as "wing-nuts", which will not do the cause any good. A person has to be taken seriously if he's to affect any real change. But I never specifically called you wing-nut".

---------- Point Three ----------

You said, "Logically, you are also much different in that you do not initiate the use of force (that I know), and that you are right to defend your wealth. The same are true of me though, and are more important distinctions from Pat Robertson than the fact that we both have strong, opposing views on religion. The single important fact is that mine are rational. Yours are also, on economics, with the exception of the economic role of churches."

I don't really understand your meaning and/or intent in this regard. I'm not sure if you were making any specific point, and if so, what it was. However, I will say this as it concerns the economic roll of churches. Under today's tax system, I think they should be taxed just like any other business. Most (or all) of them are run like business, and many of them are not much more than political action organizations disguised as churches -- both on the left and the right (Jessie Jackson, Pat Robertson, whomever). But in the bigger picture, I don't believe businesses should be taxed at all; and I'm in favor of a national sales tax as a replacement for the current income tax system. But I don't think I've ever said anything about my opinion concerning the economic roll of churches, at least not that I remember. What did I say, or what do you think I said?

---------- Point Four ----------

You said, "ALL redistribution of wealth schemes are evil, not just those that operate according to amount of wealth. Schemes to redistribute wealth according to number of offspring or religious affiliation are equally evil. Faith-based initiatives are theft just as Welfare is theft. The entire collectivist-altruist game is based on justifying crime by claiming noble intentions, and whether a noble intention exists or not is irrelevant. How can you condone special treatment for churches and churchgoers that is not available to a full 20% of the population?"

As I think I showed in a previous answer, I don't condone special treatment for churches. Why do you believe that I do? As to the rest of your message, I don't disagree. So what's the problem? However, as a side-note, what you call evil, I might call misguided. I kinda' have a different and more specific definition for evil, so I might avoid making the qualifications for "evil" too large.

---------- Point Five ----------

This is concerning my sarcastic remark, "Maybe you can get them to start praising the devil while you're at it."

Okay, maybe that bit of sarcasm was uncalled for. but I try to interject a little humor once in a while.

But you went on to say, "They already worship evil in the form of indulging an unaccounted whim for redemption without any attempt to earn it. Reality does not work like that. Nor do I. Nor will I be coerced to support such an abomination without protest."

How are you "coerced to support such an abomination"?

---------- Point Six ----------

On your comments, "I don't fear Christians either. They're nothing but sissies. ..... I do judge Christians. They are irrevocably evil, until they renounce their delusions and accept reality as the only valid realm to provide any standard of value ....." and so on.

No comment.

---------- Point Seven ----------

In reply to my own comment, "I see Christian Americans as a vital part to spreading the philosophy of individualism."

You replied, "Are you wearing rose-colored glasses, beer goggles or LSD to see that? Christian individuals, Christian intellectuals and Jesus Christ are all as imaginary as the Easter Bunny."

Well, the next time I see a Christian, especially since you also mentioned the Easter Bunny, I'll just say, "Hello Harvey". (Not many people will get the reference.)

---------- Point Eight ----------

On spreading the philosophy of individualism, you said, "You have to live it before you can spread it."

Again, I think we're mincing the principle of espousing something, and the reality of recognizing the society and system in which we live.

If you really did "live" what you are espousing, then you would be one of those people who refuses to pay your taxes because what they're used for violates your principles. If that's the case, more power to ya'. I hope you continue to evade the law, and you'll always be a folk-hero in my eyes.

As for me, I'll continue to preach from the highest mountain top, and share my beliefs with all who will listen, that the transfer-of-wealth system is wrong and destructive. Call me a coward, but I'll continue to pay my taxes to pay for that system, even though I think it's wrong. And if I'm not passionate enough to practice your form of civil disobedience as a way of protest, then so be it. But I think I just might be able to do more if I stay out of jail. (And how do you either evade the law or get so much computer time in jail?)

But how exactly do you "live it"? What did you mean by that, other than what I may have just surmised?

.
You asked, "Can you, without comment on the style of my presentation or your opinion of my personality......"

My answer: Yes, I can do that

".....name any objective criterion by which use of taxpayer's money on religion is in any way less a criminal act of theft than use of taxpayer's money for subsidies of the poor?"

My answer: No, I can't.

You asked, "Is the right to be secure in one's person and possessions more protected than the right to be free of government support for an establishment of religion?"

My answer: I may not understand the question. Could you rephrase the question so I may give you a yes or no answer?

You said, "I suspect you do not attempt to make that case rationally because you know it cannot be made. I'm not dropping this topic because the moral significance of the two is identical, not because I'm any sort of 'anti-religion zealot'.

My comment: Okay.

.
I guess it has something to do with Point Number Eight.

.

I feel you're not worth my time.

But I don't know you personally. How long HAVE you been willing to submit to irrationality, as long as it's masked in superstition?

Probably since he was told he'd grow hair in his palms and go blind if he yanked his crank...hahahaha :D

.
You don't have to answer for me, since I already know the answer. But your refusal to answer shows how you continually utter incredibly stupid things without having the slightest idea as to what you're talking about, and without any basis in fact to back it up. You'd be surprised at the number of emails I've received from others agreeing that you're no more than an uninformed blow-hard. And you just again proved it.

But for those who might be curious, the answer is as follows:

The top 50 percent of income earners in the USA pay 96 percent of the income taxes collected.

The top 10 percent of the income earners in the USA pay 65 percent of the income taxes collected.

The top 5 percent of the income earners in the USA pay 54 percent of the income taxes collected.

How much does Bill Gates, personally, pay in taxes? I have no idea. And the correct answer to my original question is, neither do you. But you're the one who made that stupid claim without the slightest notion of whether or not it was true.

Okay
.
Maxwell's Question:

How does one go about convincing 100 million Americans (give or take), regardless of race, creed, color, sexual orientation, heritage, background, economic status, political agenda, etc., to dismiss the notion of a collectivist society, especially in the light of having lived under a collectivist society, to some degree or another, for the past fifty years, to favor an individualist, libertarian society?

Absolutely's Answer:

Undermine collectivists' claims of a moral sanction. Logic does so without exception. Confront collectivist premises with logic each time you encounter them, and aside from being EXTREMELY busy, you will also destroy the illusion of self-esteem of everybody in your sphere of influence who lives according to the premises of collectivism. Philosophical and psychological justice are the first step. As long as those are abandoned, even in the name of achieving a practical advance toward a formal recognition of individual liberty, the general trend will continue to be the advance of collectivism.

Maxwell's Reply:

But how will that get us to where we want to go, how will that reverse and eliminate the transfer-of-wealth system, and how long will it take?

Absolutely's serious answer:

It will begin around the time that 50% + 1 of Congress has a vocal majority of constituents who understand that reality matters in morality, and myth and superstition do not. I predict confidently that this will happen only when mystical beliefs are confidently derided as childish evasions of thought, not genuine ideas to be taken seriously or treated as honest beliefs in discussions among adults.

Judas was a member of a political group called the zealots. Religion was already the subject, and poof! I assumed the worst.

But thanks for the compliment about enjoying the sparring. I do too. And I'll try to remember that by the standard dictionary definition, I'm proud to be an anti-religious zealot. Unless I'm talking to a professional linguist, religious scholar, or part-time astronomer who goes by levannah!

"The top 50 percent of income earners in the USA pay 96 percent of the income taxes collected.

The top 10 percent of the income earners in the USA pay 65 percent of the income taxes collected.

The top 5 percent of the income earners in the USA pay 54 percent of the income taxes collected."

For comparison, what percentage of the total income that the IRS taxes do each of those categories earn?

.
The top 5 percent of income earners account for 21 percent of the total income earned.

The top 20 percent of income earners account for 50 percent of the total income earned

The top 40 percent of income earners account for 73 percent of the total income earned.

The top 50 percent of income earners account for 81 percent of the total income earned. (Estimated by finding the middle between 40 and 60 percent numbers)

The top 60 percent of income earners account for 88 percent of the total income earned.

Broken down as follows in 20 percent increments, lowest to highest:

3.5 - Lowest 20 percent
8.8 - From 21 to 40 percent
14.8 - From 41 to 60 percent
24.3 - From 61 to 80 percent
49.7 - Highest 20 percent

21.7 - Highest 5 percent

Source: U.S Census Bureau (2002)

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-221.pdf#search='income%20percentages'

So for a income to tax comparison:

The top 5 percent of income earners account for 21 percent of the total income earned, yet they pay 54 percent of all income taxes collected.

The top 50 percent of income earners account for 81 percent of the total income earned, yet they pay 96 percent of all income taxes collected.

The bottom 50 percent of income earners account for 19 percent of the total income earned, yet they pay only 4 percent of all income taxes collected.

What percentage of income earners pay no taxes at all? I don't have that number at my fingertips, and it's not indicated on any of the sources I've referenced. I could probably find it, but my guess is that it will fall somewhere in the bottom 30 to 35 percent, or so. But it's painfully obvious that our entire tax system is solely supported by the top 50 percent of wage earners.

But no, that's not enough, is it? The transfer-of-wealth thieves want even more. It's absolutely disgusting!

.
What kind of comparison were you expecting? Or did you already know the answer, but just wanted me to post it. If so, thank you. These are very telling statistics.

.
And the top 50 percent of income earners -- the ones paying 96 percent of all taxes -- are those earning over $43,000. People earning less than $43,000 account for ONLY 4 percent of the income taxes collected.

just what I found. While morons like TheChas cry for more taxes on the rich, the poor are already getting a pass for next to nothing.

"The top 5 percent of income earners account for 21 percent of the total income earned."

"The top 5 percent of the income earners in the USA pay 54 percent of the income taxes collected."

21% of wealth accounts for 54% of tax. This is ABSOLUTELY incompatible with "all men are created equal."

How does TheChas (or any other communist) propose to resolve that contradiction? Mao couldn't. 65 million peasants died without his knowledge during his five-year plans, while his advisors told him communism was working wonders and more rice was being collected than ever. Which led to the popular saying amongst the peasants: "Communism sounds nice, but it doesn't put rice on the table."

You're so aestute...can you state the obvious anymore brilliantly?

Let's get this straight, knob:

I *never* said I knew dollar figures. You assumed that.

I never said I knew exactly what Bill Gates pays in taxes. You assumed that.

I never even said I knew anything about Gates himself. I said "...people like Bill Gates...". You just totally twisted things there. Talk about only seeing what you want to see.

Go read that post again. Keep that in mind. If you don't understand it after reading it again, I'll explain punctuation in the English language for you later and bring the crayons for you to use at recess.

Lastly...if you wanna admire someone...admire Sam Walton...at least he worked his way up...didn't have a rich lawyer daddy to hand him $50,000 interest-free to start a business.

Guess you'd rather admire a guy who had the easy life.

Now, go back to your number crunching and hunting Wikipedia and Google for statistics.

I'm going back to implementing software systems.

Some info I found on the web. I'll not post a source, since Max doesn't have to either:

******************
What percentage of taxes are paid by the wealthiest 5% of Americans?

The wealthiest 5 percent have 59% of the wealth and pay 38.4 percent of federal taxes. The wealthiest 1 percent have over 38 percent of the wealth and pay 24.8 percent of federal taxes. These households have an average wealth of $10.2 million and pay only 3.5 percent of their wealth in taxes.

By way of comparison, the bottom 40 percent of taxpayers have an average net wealth of $1,100 and pay 163 percent of their net wealth in taxes.

If all taxpayers paid the same 10.5 percent of their wealth in taxes as median income families pay, the taxes of the lowest 40 percent would be cut by 94 percent while the taxes of the wealthiest would triple.

Source: Congressional Budget Office and United for a Fair Economy

********************************
Who benefited most from the federal tax cuts in 2001, 2002, and 2003?

The benefits of these tax cuts were skewed heavily toward the wealthy, especially those at the very top.

Average increase in after-tax income
in 2003 from tax cuts

Percent Dollars
Millionaires 5.4% $112,925
Top 1% 4.6% 26,335
Middle fifth 2.6% 676
Bottom fifth 0.2% 3

Source: Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institute

**********************

Is there still hope for me, Ab? ]:)

Whether there is hope for you, jck, depends on how you answer the next few questions: what is the difference between annual income and wealth, aka net worth?

Which of those quantities is taxed?

Why that one and not the other?

Absolutely - I noticed jck's gross error as well

While I posted the true and accurate income to tax ratio, he posted the "wealth" to tax ratio.

The only thing I'm not sure of is if he did it intentionally in an attempt to be disingenuous or dishonest (or both), or if he's really so stupid that he didn't know the difference.

My guess is both.

And did you notice how he "conveniently" overlooked my comment, "And if you want to answer the same question for your broader target of 'people like' Bill Gates, that's fine. The same question applies."

Do you want to know where he got that "statistic? Do a Web search using the exact words, "The wealthiest 5 percent have 59% of the wealth and pay 38.4 percent of federal taxes", and you'll see all the whacko - leftist blogs where he gets all his opinions. (Really, do the search. You'll get a great laugh!)

What a first-class ASS! That guy is a piece of work. And I know that I'm not the only one laughing my ass off at the loser.

No, to answer your question, there's NO HOPE for jck.

And he thinks he's you buddy because you were slamming me on that religion stuff! The guy's a friggin' JOKE! You have a lefty-looney on your hands.

.
http://piv.pivpiv.dk/

Probably tax info from their prize-winning chemist no doubt.

Yet another unamazing detour through Max's la-la land. Why do I need to reference Denmark for American information, Max? Who's the loony here? Denmark? Jesus...now that is a far-fetch...I didn't even go look at that site.

BTW, your figures are derived from "Adjusted Gross Income" as defined by the IRS in their 2003 statistics.

However, can you define "Adjusted Gross Income" please? And, please tell the readers here what items can be deducted from your "Total Gross Income" to determine "Adjusted Gross Income"? I believe that is where you'll find the big shelters and what not which people like Gates use to hide their money.

Also as their income becomes more "adjusted", they pay a higher percentage of taxes.

But the big kicker to me:

The charts you show give no information on just the top 10, 50, or 100 income earners in this country.

They address the top 1 percent, or as shown by the IRS some 1,286,098 filing taxpayers.

Therefore, you've not addressed what I brought up originally and I would not consider all of the top one percent of American incomes reported to be "people like Bill Gates".

Bill Gates makes a bonus alone per year (some $400k+ for 2005) which is larger than what is required to be in the top one percent of income earners in this country.

In fact, several corporate executives and officers at Microsoft alone make bonuses that would earn them a spot in that...not even considering their salary or dividends or shares given to them as part of incentive/compensation.

And, very few of them (Paul Allen, in my estimation...maybe Ballmer now) would be in league with Gates at Microsoft (because of shares held) ...and Allen is the only one with a total net worth near Gates in that corp.

So, arguing someone who makes $300k per year (or even $3M a year) is "like Bill Gates" financially is absurd.

BTW...if Microsoft stock pays $.01 in a year, Gates makes $11.6M from that alone.

As for year end FY05, Microsoft reports:

"Net income for fiscal year 2005 was $12.25 billion and diluted earnings per share were $1.12, which included legal charges of $0.13 and tax benefits of $0.09. For the previous fiscal year, net income and diluted earnings per share were $8.17 billion and $0.75, which included legal charges of $0.17 and a tax benefit of $0.02."

http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY05/earn_rel_q4_05.mspx

So, Bill just made another...$1,300,000,000? I wonder if he's paying 25% of that in taxes? or 35%? You really think so? And you really seem to think someone making $300k or even $3M is in his category...that's funny.

So, I'd say you get me statistics for anyone making over $250,000,000 a year and I'd consider that near enough to be "like Bill Gates".

Fact is: You'll never agree with me though no matter what. You seem to think that the elite can do no wrong because of their position in society. Plus, you just like to argue for people like yourself. Self-validation is false optimism. :)

I still say go with a 10% flat tax. Cut all the BS out...establish a poverty level based on cost of living...give maybe a deduction for overwhelming catastrophic healthcare expenses to the working class...and that be it.

That'd save all the BS involved and shrinking the IRS by about 90% would save hundreds of millions if not billions.

Have a nice day...veruul :)

I'm not gonna push textbook definitions here, so I expect to get bullets from Herr Max for this one:

annual income = is compensatory inflow an individual receives, whether salary, bonus, dividends, etc., in a year.

wealth is indeterminable. I'm sure what would make me "wealthy" (in my opinion) would be a drop in the bucket to Bill Gates.

net worth = The value an individual holds after all liabilities are deducted from total asset worth.

What Max doesn't want to tell you is, people like Gates have $10Bs in stock they've never paid taxes on (and probably never will) even though it has been a form of compensation given to them as an individual from the Corporation.

Hell, I remember being given more than $50k in life insurance and being taxed on what was over that. But, stocks are immune?

They only pay taxes on their dividends, unless they donate them as well to a chartiable organization...like...The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Passing more laws that govern only politicians would not only not reduce corruption and pandering to the most depraved political causes of the least rational voters, it is also consistent with the premise that the solution to [b]every[/b] political problem is creation of another law. The only way to fix the system is to establish that progressive [and regressive] tax codes contradict the belief that all men are created equal and that nobody is entitled to receive money from the government, because the government exists to protect the liberty of all citizens, not to substitute for the responsibility of any to provide for themselves.

Do yourself a favor, jck, and look into the effect of socialism's effect on one Scandinavian country from an honest, scholarly perspective:

http://piv.pivpiv.dk/

Just because Max posted it doesn't mean it's wrong. Trust me.

If so, jck, then why are you arguing with Maxwell at all? The way I see it, you're more worried about the rich paying less than our fair share and his perspective is that the rich already pay too much, but you seem to be in near agreement on what would constitute a fairer, less evadable tax. Please comment at your convenience.

achievement

It all depends on your definition of "rich" or "wealthy", etc.

My reference is to those who are the elite of the rich.

To me, someone who makes $200,000 a year is not rich.

Someone who makes $200,000 a year plus makes $1,000,000,000 a year on dividends from stocks given them as part of their employment as CEO...would qualify as elite.

If you took the top-paid 500 CEOs (according to Forbes) in the United States and determined they should be paying around 35% percent in federal tax alone on their earnings (not included are things like shares given them,etc), they would pay in taxes alone on their compensation some $1.8B of their aggregate $5.1B.

But, I bet the top 10 of those aren't paying even near 35% of their compensation.

Remember, that does not cover earnings such as dividends from stocks earned. That is purely their compensation for their position.

Gates alone earned over $1B in stock profits in FY 2005. Guys like Ellison, the Waltons, Buffet, and Dell I'm sure all make similar profits on which they should pay tax as well.

But, there are ways for them to shelter these earnings or give them to charities and avoid paying taxes on them. Hence, undermining the fiscal foundation of our country.

And, this doesn't include how corporations avoid taxes too...or how they get hundreds of millions in exemptions.

My promotion of a 10% flat tax simply would:

a) make the taxes across the board fairer to everyone.
b) reduce somewhat the bureaucracy that is the US Government by vastly downsizing the IRS.
c) make it far harder for all Americans to evade taxes legally or illegally

I would only promote 2 loopholes:

1) people who earn a net income at or below poverty level for their area be exempt from taxes (not an adjusted income...but, their gross earnings) so that their taxes would not put them in financial distress.

2) people who spend more than a flat percentage of their net income on personal and family medical care (not insurance, but actual expenses)

I don't know what would be a fair percentage...but, I think it would be somewhere between 5 and 20 percent of your net income to medical would allow you to deduct that expense from your income.

Max's big gripe about taxes has been with his desire to make services provided to him by government basically "a la carte". For example, he has said he doesn't want to have to pay the taxes that pay for public schools because he chooses to send his children to private schools. He also doesn't want to have to pay taxes that support things like welfare.

That is, Max wants to only pay what he wants to pay.

I am sure that I could find a lot of taxpayers in Illinois or Florida or California where it's flat who don't want to pay for the US Government to blast holes through mountains in Colorado to give interstate highways to people who choose to live there either. But, they have to help pay for that.

Promote the general welfare...I seem to remember those words from somewhere...wish more people would take that meaningfully.

I foster the idea of making taxes across the board and fair to all, whether blue collar or white collar or corporate, and in the process reducing the tax burden those that carry it now.

And, my plan does not eliminate programs that help people. The real fix for things like welfare...is to FIX them...not eliminate them. Much like my tax idea fixes the IRS indirectly by reducing the complication and the need for hordes of personnel.

It simply makes it the responsibility of every person and company who earns a self-sustaining income to pay their share...no matter if they make 50,000 a year...or 5,000,000 a year...or 5,000,000,000 a year.

And, that share would decrease what is paid in by the bulk of Americans...including those earning between $100,000 and $1,000,000.

Also, I'd have one other thing:

It would be the job of the IRS to ensure people were paying taxes on all income. If you were caught not paying on any income, you'd lose your opportunity for any exemption.

Of course, there would be some exceptions...why pursue a single incident of someone who didn't pay $5 of tax on a $50 job they forgot they made when it costs $250 to pursue the issue?

And if a person/employer paid you "under the table", they'd lose their opportunity for any exemption as well.

Needless to say...I think since taxes are put on all Americans that they should relieve all Americans....not be a pick-and-choose system.

And if you use a flat-tax with a most minimal of exemptions, then all people get treated with the most fairness possible.

Do Max and I share a common idea?? Perhaps. I think the tax system is unfair to a lot of people...poor, working class and wealthy alike.

However, Max's is more of a "me" attitude. He wants taxes to fit him best.

My tax proposal would give everyone equal treatment with an across-the-board rate, rather than just give tax breaks to those who can afford to put their children in private schools or buy off-shore shelters.

I can't screw everybody else to make sure I get ahead. Money just isn't that important to me.

I couldn't live life having gotten rid of people knowing the true reason why was that someone else wanted a bigger bonus. It's why I haven't accepted any of the supervisory/management jobs that have been offered to me with corporates.

And, I couldn't take a loophole in paying my fair share that I knew was passing the burden on to someone else in my country. Whether that is today...or to mine or someone else's children 30 years from now.

I have a conscience, and a commitment to be responsible to contribute to the welfare of my nation as a whole...not just when it is good for me.

Anyways...diatribe over...

that idiots are in office is because:

1) other idiots are allowed to vote
2) idiots allow themselves to be bought and sold (politically and ethically) like sheep
3) idiots seem to think smiling is a quality of a good leader

One of the best ways to get idiots out of government?

Don't hire them.

Do you know how many government and corporate positions are filled by unqualified personnel just to "fill the hole" in the organization?

Fill it when you have the qualified people...not when someone shows up that says they know their stuff.

That goes for staffed positions, and elected officials.

Why we need 535 people in Washington DC to manage passing legislation is beyond me. Just like the tax system is not complex to provide fairness...but, to maintain the bureaucracy.

I still advocate the "no confidence" vote like the Soviets had. That way if you found out that one candidate was an embezzler and the other was a drughead after a primary...you wouldn't have to make an uninformed decision of 3rd party candidates...or choose the "lesser of 2 evils".

But, you can get the idiots out of government who would waste. It's just a matter of empowering the people to do so...not telling them they can't do it.

After all, that's essentially what your vote is for...hiring and firing the elected representatives.

I'll stay out of your life to the extent that you stay out of mine.