ALPA Pin
11-11-2012, 10:32 AM
#101
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Why are they anti-value voters? Many of my non-christan freinds have a value system similar to mine. If we tout liberty and freedom we most accept that others may have different ideas than ourselves. A few can not dictate the values of a society. Free will is our gift.
Within christianity we have many denominations with many different ideas. Taking the stand that my way is the only right way and my values are the only right values pushes many people away.
I am a person of faith and I do not fear our government, I embrace it. Just the fact that we can have these discussions is an example of the freedom we can enjoy.
Within christianity we have many denominations with many different ideas. Taking the stand that my way is the only right way and my values are the only right values pushes many people away.
I am a person of faith and I do not fear our government, I embrace it. Just the fact that we can have these discussions is an example of the freedom we can enjoy.
I dont fear my government but I do know that individuals risking their own money will always make better decisions then the mob risking other peoples money.
11-11-2012, 11:19 AM
#102
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Gunter: Perhaps you've missed the news where the bush tax cuts would not be extended to the wealthy? It was maybe 2 days ago that I read this. It's in direct conflict with your claim of: "while you would limit deductions for all, the Democrats in charge have not and will not. In fact they will do just the opposite if left to their own devices."
Like I said, they will not let their voting block pay more except under duress. The deficit will not be cut enough unless they are forced to deal with it.
I think the only hope we have is the Fiscal Cliff.
Last edited by Gunter; 11-11-2012 at 11:44 AM.
11-11-2012, 11:45 AM
#103
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 777 Captain in Training
Posts: 1,457
I wrote out a nice long reply to that, but I decided to delete it. I agree there should be incentives against having 25 kids or whatever, no question.
My question is, what if they have one kid, assistance, sh*t happens (could be for a variety of reasons, in some cases taking/adopting from an abusive family member, as is the case with one of my friends, but I disgress) and they have a 2nd one. If the money doesn't go up to support that 2nd kid, what happens to it?
It also kind of sounds like having kids is something only the rich are allowed to do? I also don't disagree that it should be based on your economic ability to support them, but just you try to take away the middle-classes deductions for having kids, haha. (but see, I support both of those things).
My question is, what if they have one kid, assistance, sh*t happens (could be for a variety of reasons, in some cases taking/adopting from an abusive family member, as is the case with one of my friends, but I disgress) and they have a 2nd one. If the money doesn't go up to support that 2nd kid, what happens to it?
It also kind of sounds like having kids is something only the rich are allowed to do? I also don't disagree that it should be based on your economic ability to support them, but just you try to take away the middle-classes deductions for having kids, haha. (but see, I support both of those things).
Not once did I recommended to stop the middle-class deductions for kids!! I recommended to stop paying for someone else s decision to start having kids at 16. Then require us the tax payer to pay for them in form of government assistance for continuing to have more and more kids.
You seem to think for welfare queens of any color that the money intended for their kids goes to the kids. Some of the money does but the lion share in a lot of cases goes to support the moms lifestyle. Don't believe me ask any cop who works the projects.
11-11-2012, 01:29 PM
#104
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Left seat
Posts: 73
Well for one the money would follow the kid as it does now if the mother cannot care for at and her mom does for example. No the rich are not the only ones who should have kids but in-order to have kids you should be able to afford them. You should not expect others to pay for your decision to have kids.
Not once did I recommended to stop the middle-class deductions for kids!! I recommended to stop paying for someone else s decision to start having kids at 16. Then require us the tax payer to pay for them in form of government assistance for continuing to have more and more kids.
You seem to think for welfare queens of any color that the money intended for their kids goes to the kids. Some of the money does but the lion share in a lot of cases goes to support the moms lifestyle. Don't believe me ask any cop who works the projects.
Not once did I recommended to stop the middle-class deductions for kids!! I recommended to stop paying for someone else s decision to start having kids at 16. Then require us the tax payer to pay for them in form of government assistance for continuing to have more and more kids.
You seem to think for welfare queens of any color that the money intended for their kids goes to the kids. Some of the money does but the lion share in a lot of cases goes to support the moms lifestyle. Don't believe me ask any cop who works the projects.
You do not know others reality and this idea that I can sit and judge others since I pay taxes is very sad.
"Do not judge others least you be judged yourself"
11-11-2012, 02:28 PM
#106
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,989
Why do people still claim it's "progressive"? The idea of progressive taxes is that if the middle class pays say 25% of their income, the poor maybe do 12%, and the rich do 35%. Now that's just spitballing some random numbers, but that's what it's based on. "Progressive taxes" is not based on looking at the numbers after the fact and saying that the rich payed 200 billion in taxes, the middle class payed 2 billion, and the poor 400 million. That's tax revenue. Everyone knows that the top earners shift their money around to avoid paying taxes due to the loopholes that currently exist. I mean, at least I thought everyone knew this.
Your whole argument hinges upon "our tax system is so progressive"? I just don't get it...
11-11-2012, 02:28 PM
#107
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,989
11-11-2012, 02:37 PM
#108
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
That is a rather broad brush you are painting with. There is no doubt that some abuse the system, but there are more who benefit from it. For every story of a so called moocher there are ones of people moving beyond the adversity of poverty with the help of the system.
You do not know others reality and this idea that I can sit and judge others since I pay taxes is very sad.
"Do not judge others least you be judged yourself"
You do not know others reality and this idea that I can sit and judge others since I pay taxes is very sad.
"Do not judge others least you be judged yourself"
What is the single most significant factor in determining if a child grows up in poverty? What liberal policy has addressed this?
11-11-2012, 02:53 PM
#109
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
But our system isn't progressive, it's regressive for the top earners. Although the rates are one thing, the % they pay on "income" is another, due to all those credits, deductions, tax shelters, etc.
Why do people still claim it's "progressive"? The idea of progressive taxes is that if the middle class pays say 25% of their income, the poor maybe do 12%, and the rich do 35%. Now that's just spitballing some random numbers, but that's what it's based on. "Progressive taxes" is not based on looking at the numbers after the fact and saying that the rich payed 200 billion in taxes, the middle class payed 2 billion, and the poor 400 million. That's tax revenue. Everyone knows that the top earners shift their money around to avoid paying taxes due to the loopholes that currently exist. I mean, at least I thought everyone knew this.
Your whole argument hinges upon "our tax system is so progressive"? I just don't get it...
Why do people still claim it's "progressive"? The idea of progressive taxes is that if the middle class pays say 25% of their income, the poor maybe do 12%, and the rich do 35%. Now that's just spitballing some random numbers, but that's what it's based on. "Progressive taxes" is not based on looking at the numbers after the fact and saying that the rich payed 200 billion in taxes, the middle class payed 2 billion, and the poor 400 million. That's tax revenue. Everyone knows that the top earners shift their money around to avoid paying taxes due to the loopholes that currently exist. I mean, at least I thought everyone knew this.
Your whole argument hinges upon "our tax system is so progressive"? I just don't get it...
11-11-2012, 03:03 PM
#110
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,989
Seriously?
I was just correcting the people who were claiming that our system is progressive by pointing out the fact that top earners pay significantly less of a % in taxes than the middle class. Heck, maybe even less than the poor in many cases.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
