Wirehead Studios

http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/s8089.html (http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/s8089.html)


I'm not the type to hate, but... Damn I hate democrats!  :evil:   :shout: (http://forums.wireheadstudios.org/style_images/Neon_Ang-366/icon13.gif) (http://forums.wireheadstudios.org/style_images/Neon_Ang-366/icon8.gif) (http://forums.wireheadstudios.org/style_images/Neon_Ang-366/icon12.gif) (http://forums.wireheadstudios.org/style_images/Neon_Ang-366/icon3.gif)

                               Now that I have expressed my dearest anger I wish to explain it. I live in Minnesota, and our taxes are extremely high already, we are already the 4th highest taxed state in the nation, and our state is swarmed with democrats who wish to tax us to death. DFL'ers (democrats) feel that to make Minnesota great we have to be basically communist how?

Support Lazy Ass Sobs On Welfare [/u]
The spending on section 8 is going to increase dramatically. They already force us to support the lamos on welfare. Giving them brand new 4 star houses. Top notch medical care, and treasure chests full of our money. Wow what a life! What's the point of going to school when I can be illiterate parasitic sob, shoot up herwin, and be a pathetic excuse for a human being, then I can get full section 8 benifits. Yeah! I would love to be a bottom feeder! Why spend thousands of dollars on collage, just to get taxed to death. (because your a rich PhD) That's not worth it.
These people  (DFL) have removed all inituative to get an education and earn as much money as you want. DFL'ers say that is unfair to the poor people. You know what  being poor is a choice as being rich is a choice so what ever you choose, it's outcome will be as much work you put in, and democrates want to remove that. The idea of "financial equality" or "fairness" is a comminist idea!

Pay for everyone's education no-matter what [/u]
They also plan to increase spending on education. This is bad, considering that there is absoluly no competition between public schools and private schools. If I want to send my child to a private school, not only do I have to pay for tuition, but my property tax for the public schools. So the public schools have a monopoly on us essentially. I don't want to send my child to public schools just for the fact they cram their false ultra-liberal neo-darwinism, secularist, humanist religion bullshit to my child's delicate mind. This make me freaking SICK!

This is our current situation, now the DFL wants to increase all this?!?! so we can be the most taxed state in the entire 50 states?!?! this is inexcuseable!

I am assuming that the 10.65% is a state tax, seperate from the national tax? things are diff over here.

Its all a part of their secret plan to wedge american into communism. Dont voice your objections you will be accused of hating the poor and dont you dare go thinking private enterprize might do a better job at some things than a bloated federal goverment. remember you exist for the state it dosent exist for you so if they want your money you have to lean over and take it up the tail pipe or you might get labled a racist.

:offtopic:
<--- Communist. I'm like.. America's greatest enemy... who lives in America.

Ahhhhh! RUN!!!

I don't consider myself communist tho.. but I can say I don't support capitalism. :)

BTW Washu, don't kid yourself. Republicans and Democrats aren't much different. Both retain the same economic policies in 95% of cases. The only differences between the two parties are petty things like "morals".

You mean the only difference is what rhetoric they use to try to appeal to specific audiences.  Very few in government actually stand up for what they believe in, and very few are in government to stand up for anything, especially the rights of the people.

Well said Bird, well said. As it is clear to everyone now, the Republicans are not much better than the Democrats. Both have lied and cheated us of our rights in the last decade, so there is no question now. We are sporked.

True to that McDeth, there had been some good democrats as well but I think the scoreboard in terms of pro-tax, pro-sob, anti-bust-your-ass goes to democrats. Though I still have admired a couple lefties that to this day keep me on my toes.

The way I see it, Repub's and Demo's are eachothers new 'Communists'. People like to be able to pick sides and blow shit out of proportion. So there's two approaches to running a country, both in essence pretty much okay? We'll pick a side and hate the shit out of the other whenever we get a chance. Just listening to someone like Ann Coulter convinces me that there's no sense in the insane animosity between the two sides here.
This is yet another reason why I keep far away from 'practical' politics (especially of the foreign kind), the essence and true intentions are nearly always swamped by loads and loads of bothersome b.s. - and it looks like most people prefer it that way.

If politics wasn't so much about dirty tricks and courtroom squabbles, if there was some honour left in the whole business, I'd have seen the purpose of this. (see National ID card thread)

Well, what parties (supposedly) represent in principle and what they do in practice are often in complete opposition, hence the term "lying politician".  Even if an individual politician wants to do the right thing, often times the party leadership takes them aside and has a little talk with them about what they will do in order to have their next campaign funded from the party's coffers.  It's a catch-22, and the people are always the ones who lose out in the end.  Even those people who really, really wanted Bush elected and a strong Republican majority in the US House and Senate are peeved right now at the Republican party.  Why?  They won't do what the people expected them to do after obtaining such a strong majority.  It's one thing for the Democrats to stonewall them, which is expected, it's another for the Republicans to let them get away with it.  To me that's either a sign of cowardice and intimidation, or else cooperation, and perhaps a bit of both.  At the same time, as long as Democrats were in power, the poor never came out of poverty, healthcare didn't improve, nor did the world become a more peaceful place.  Neither party really does what it's supposed to and both sides break their promises repeatedly.  To me it's just a matter of damage control, or trying to figure out which configuration will cause the least amount of problems over the longest period of time.  50/50 seemed to work pretty good since neither side could do much of anything at all. ;)

I want to emphasize that I don't hate democrats. (I was rather uptight and I was extremely sick when I posted this thread) I hate what they are doing. Every effort to increase taxes and instate the concept that it is society's responsiblilty to care for washed up lazy sobs on welfare, seem to come from the democrats more then any other political party. I'm all about working for everything you got, not leeching society for it. Not all democrats are for this, but I think the majority are.

washu , we here pay 40% to 52% taxes here depending on how much you earn .

Everything is so binary with mankind. Homosexual or heterosexual, black or white, good and evil. All these things at one point or another caused a violent  event to take place in man's history.

I strongly believe this binary bickering with (as Tab labelled them) "Repubs and Demos" will be the cause for more violence. That is why a two party system never works. We need to have a multi-party system with at least 10 major parties or more.

I sporking hate American politics.

And you're wrong. George Washington is the only politician in American history to ever have it right -- he wanted a no-party system.

Of course there's always an except to the rule you cad. I'm glad there is someone here to reprieve me when I neglect to point out the obvious. Thank you Makou, you are an utter genius.

We're using a binary system right now to discuss all of this you know. ;)

With varying degrees of opinions, yes. However it can be argued since I am part of mankind, I have proven my own point. *Shrugs*

Some of the things you say bird...

ph33r the rise of the bisexual! RAR!

But the thing I'm pointing out is that your tax percentage should not increase because you earn more money. If I make $100k per year, my tax rate should not go up because I bust ass for it. It's called incentive. That is what my point is. You give the people the incentive to bust ass, your economy will go up, and if you have patience, it will eventually be found out to be more efficient then raising taxes. Most people don't realize this. There are lots of clever money saving alternatives in relieving a deficit or increase spending in a certain area then the bluntness of increasing taxes. Tax increases are the quick and easy way to solve a budget problem. Increasing taxes is like putting a band-aid on a leaking pipe, soon another leak will happen and you will need more band-aids. To be more efficient and not buy more and more band-aids, you need to weld it. A little harder, but is cheaper and efficient. Band-aids I refer to are the tax increases, and the broken pipe is the budget. It's a rough analogy, but it explains the point.

If you are a proposing a flat tax, you are not thinking clearly.

Calculate the tax revenue of $10,000/yr at 10% and calculate the same percentage with a $100,000/yr  income. Tell me, can YOU live off of $9,000/yr with a family? But can you live off of $90,000/yr? I know people who can live off of less...

McDeth:  By "binary" I was referring to how computers function.  I was making a jest.  ^_^

Washu's thinking is clearly conservative on this matter.  What he's saying is that if you lower taxes, revenue will increase in the long term because more earnings overall mean there's more money available to draw tax from.  It's a sound theory.  As long as the economic growth rate exceeds the difference in tax rate you'll increase your revenue, and do so at a slightly accelerating rate.  I'm sure you've all seen some rather basic economic theory... ever see the little supply/demand graphs?  Here's how it usually works.

Joe Seller has a product.  He wants to make money, so naturally one would assume the higher the price, the more money he makes.  However, Jane Buyer only has so much money to spend, and may not be willing to pay that much for Joe Seller's product.  This means Joe Seller may make a lot of profit per sale, but he won't sell many products.  He will have too many products and not enough people to buy them, and it costs him to make his products.  This is too much supply, not enough demand.

On the other hand, if Joe Seller prices his product too low, he'll sell a lot of products but he won't make any profits.  He can't recover his costs, and eventually he'll lose demand because everyone will have one (market saturation) or he'll run out and people will lose interest (shortage).  This is too much demand, not enough supply.

Neither situation is good.  Instead, Joe Seller has to adjust his price to compensate for the level of supply and the level of demand.  If demand exceeds ability to supply, prices are raised (sound like the gas pumps lately?) and if supply exceeds demand, prices are lowered.

Now apply this to taxes.  If taxes are low, people will have an incentive to work, and will earn more money.  They will also spend more money.  This feeds the economy, as businesses can expand from higher revenues, and consumers can buy more things.  If taxes are high, consumers have less money to spend, and businesses have lower revenue and can't expand.  Economically speaking, taxes are bad.  They are ALWAYS a drain on the system because they ALWAYS subtract from it.  A pure market system desires no taxes at all.  However, this is the Real World™ and taxes are necessary for the government to function.  Again, like Joe Seller and Joe Buyer, a balance has to be reached.  There's an optimal level of efficiency where revenues are maximized.  This is NOT accomplished by raising taxes through the roof.  At the same time, lowering taxes too much means you won't get any revenue at all.

The one thing missing from this discussion is government spending which is, by definition, wasteful.  I'm not talking about allocation of funds to any one thing, like defense, or healthcare, I'm talking about the pure bureaucracy of the system.  When you look at business overhead for administration and management and compare it to government's overhead for administration and management, it's astounding how wasteful inefficient the government is compared even to the most wasteful megacorp.  Taxes would hardly be an issue of they were spent wisely.  The problem is they are not.  Where a friend of mine lives they just voted down a local school levy.  Why?  Of the 7 million that were going to be allocated, 4 million dollars were going to go for pay increases for adminstrative staff.  These are people who already have 100% health care benefits, guaranteed government pensions, and make over $50,000 a year.  This would have raised his property taxes by $400 a year.  If it were merely operational expenses - like books, building repair, etc, the levy probably would have passed, but instead the local bureaucrats felt they were entitled to more money and tried to sell it by lauding how "efficient" the school had been by staying within budget for the last few years without a new levy.  Ok, so you pat yourselves on the back for doing what you're supposed to?  Where else can you get a huge raise just by doing your job, hmm?  This was also the second time the levy was on the ballot, it had been there during the general election.  It failed then, so they tried to sneak it through on a local election that not as many people would attend.  You know what he told me?  All the people he saw when he went to vote were over 60 years old.  Those are people on retirement incomes who can't afford the higher property taxes, or they lose their homes.  Nobody I know can afford higher taxes.

If the bureaucracy were not as wasteful, the budgets of Federal, State, and local governments could be slashed to a third of what they are.   If a business can't manage its expenses, it goes bankrupt.  Governments just raise taxes.  A good example is the Internet.  In the state of Ohio they have what is called a "Use Tax".  If you order something online and you don't pay state sales tax you're supposed to voluntarily report it when you file your income taxes.  Well, nobody pays it because most people don't know they should, or don't think to track it, or flat out don't want to or don't even care, and the end result is it's completely unenforceable.  To compensate for this, the state recently changed tax law so that if you sell something in one county, but ship it to another, you have to pay the sales tax rate of the county where it's delivered as opposed to where the sale took place.  Now how many small to medium-sized businesses can track sales in multiple counties like that?  Sure, Wal-Mart won't have trouble with it, but what about Joe's Generator Repair Service?  California is considering a "tax by the mile" system that would require every vehicle to have a GPS tracking unit because they'll lose gas tax revenues from all those fuel efficient hybrid cars they're developing.  See, nowhere do they ever say "We need to cut our spending to compensate for lower tax revenue".  All they ever do is find new and innovative ways to keep separating you from your wallet, and they don't give a damn how they get their money so long as they keep getting it.  It's your fault for depriving them of their tax revenue is how they see it, when in reality they are the ones who are fleecing you.  

You earn the money, they just take it away from you.  Just something to consider the next time a politician whines about not having enough money for school books or what have you.  Call their office and tell them and their staff to take a damned pay cut instead of sapping it from everyone else.

Damn straight.