Quag

yes UTF there is a 3rd option as gvg said it's the one i've been trying to point out. you CAN avoid paying taxes. You just need to make the right choices. I do not think you are a hypocrite I think you don't understand this simple fact. You need not be poor to avoid taxes either. Do you think 50% of americans are living in poverty? The middle class bears the brunt of taxes because they earn their living off of wages. It is very difficult to become rich merely earnign a wage. Stocks/real estate creating a buisness and other vehicules are how significant wealth is created. You pay no taxes on stock value or realestate value or a buisness worth increasing untill you sell it. Up to that time it is only potential profit. The rich learn how ot play around with this without ever making a prfoit but always increasing the value. gvg graph is interesting but it doesnt necessarily correlate to taxation rates. As has been pointed out 50% dont pay find a way to get them to and you have increased the revenue to the govt without increasing the rate. as i just mentioned to UTF middle class carries the burden i see no point in increasing a rate even on the UBER rich if most of them can avoid paying anyway. I still think it should be under 50% for top rate. heres a little exercise in math say 1 rate system at 50% no tax on first 10k person A makes 100k pays 45k taxes (100k-10k=90k, 90k/2=45k) person B makes 50k pays 20k taxes (50k-10k=40k, 40k/2=20k) person C makes 20k pays 5k taxes (20k-10k=10k, 10k/2=5k) effective rates are: A 45% B 40% C 20% Person A makes most pays most and also largest percentage more person A makes closer they come to a true 50%, I know is a simple example but add a graduated 2,3,200 tier tax rate and same holds true.

UTF I dont think you are a hypocrite I think you are very very very badly misinformed on the issues. You still refuse to deal with the question of choice. You claim you are forced to pay taxes then completely ignore me when I point out that your choices place you in a position to have to pay. Shame you can't allow yourself to look beyond molyneux's confused view of the world and see it for how it actually is. gvg thats quite a brick, will be a while before i have tiem to read it. Bill maher is really not the place to get information he is a comedian with a very definite left leaning, this places him on par with Colbert. Haven't seen all the links but my point wasn't just about is the 14% real it is also what it is based on gross vs net profits etc. So what I'm saying is it isn't just the number but how it is derived. The IRS link I assume will explain that, but again it's a brick and I prefer to read that much on paper rather than the screen.

gvg just quick check, yeah perhaps 35% is too low, not too sure myself i want it as low as possible, but i dont think it should be over 50% Not a number chosen for any other reason than psychological, I admit freely, but I have yet to see any reason it shoudl be over that. I would like to have your 35% but agree that with the current situation in the US, I cannot see how you can get out of it without both raising taxes and cutting spending. Points 1. yeah gotta do something 2.Yeah the illegal immigrants problem you have is a tough one, both sides seem to have no clue on it. First thing shoudl be reform of how immigrants can enter US legally. What to do with those here and how to keep peopel from entering illegally should be dealt with after. As long as the incentive to enter illegally is so strong and the barriers to entering legally so large you will always have this problem. 3. reforming tax code is a good idea. 70% I no like, the corporations paying 14% when rate is 35% hmm no sound good either, but then I'm not sure where the 14% number you said comes from untill I do I can't comment. If you haven't noticed by now I like to verify statements, just because someone says X is Y does not make it so. Oddly enough I learned that from studying history not from science. I discovered at some point that some books disagreed on certain points. I then decided to start reading the source material and discovered that often people misinterpreted, deliberately or not (sometimes outright lied) to project their own view. In science I accepted most of what was told me as the math bore it out or experiments could confirm (though often people cheated on the experimental results to get the desired data) Point in case I just finished Eddie Rickenbackers autobiography (great book) but he claims the P51 was a great plane because of the fantastic US engineering involved particularily in the engine dept. Actually the P51 (designed to a british not US specification FYI) was a dog at first untill the allison engine was replaced with a Rolls Royce Merlin. It then became one of the best fighters of the war. Packard built a liscence copy of the Merlin to place in the planes built over here, not an improved Allison engine as Eddie says. Still a great book on an interesting man.

gvg: I almost forgot. The video implies that the tax rate is the only factor effecting the economy. This is a simplistic and utterly wrong view. The world economy (ie other countries), the value of the dollar, natural & man made disasters, new technologies, consumer confidence and countless other factors are also involved. I apologize if he deals with these things in the 2nd half of the video, which i haven't seen yet.

gvg, I have only watched half your video, sorry out of time, try to see the rest later. But as I have a reply that will require me to search over and over again for the info I'll reply to the first half. Ok he claims original taxes were on the renatal income and implies that all property belongs to the govt, sorry I disagree. probably because I am a landowner. My land is mine not the govts. He then claims the taxes started in 1918 at 90% few searches all show 1913 as the beginning at 7% jumping up during WWI and reaching 77% in 1918 (not the 90% he claims) He then makes claims that govt income increased dramatically with increased tax rates. Well I understand you could probably use the years 1913 -1918 to prove the point 7-77% in 5 years with lowest staring over 20k in 1913 and only 4k in 1918 of course revenues went up. Basically you went from almost no taxation to a tax system. After that I cannot find any data to support his views except for 1 chart that seems to go against all the numbers that I can find stating federal income, gdp and tax rates, leading me to discount the graph. Now during WWII the tax rates increased from a pre war 79% to 1945 94% and economyand the US was the strongest economy after the war. But you have to factor in that of the large economic countries only the US did not have its infrastructure and industrial base bombed or ravaged by war. in fact despite the fact that the us used lend lease etc they also recieved huge amounts of $ for their material from their allies. Lend lease started after it was obvious that Britian could not continue to pay for all it needed. The US was also the last major combattant to enter the war, again less war for the US was anotehr reason it ended the war in a stronger position than it's allies (its a given the losers were in bad shape). He stated that prosperity and growth incease fastest when income rate sare highest. I cannot find any correlation here. in the 40's the gdp doubled, in the 50s it doubled in th e60's just under 2X, 70s it was 2.5X, 80's 2X, 90's just under 2X, 00's a little under 2X. note i didnt break down tax rates just went by decades but the 70's had a constant tax rate which i think is more important here, people, buisnesses can plan better when there is no fear of rules changing. also note the 70's had a lower rate than the 40's or 50's, during the 60's the rate dropped from 91 to 70 here links to check numbers http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_history-20110323.pdf http://www.measuringworth.com/datasets/usgdp/result.php I'll try and see rest of video later but so far as he is factually incorrect on several points I do not take him very seriously.

UTF I watched the video and no my position hasn't changed. You realize he just had an argument with himself and surprise surprise he won it. He mentioned the slavery thing again, absolutely non sequiter. A slave is forced to work and to live where the master says, you are not. Mostly his argument centres around the war in Iraq. He mentions that you can leave the country to avoid taxes but never deals with that. Unfortunately he never once mentions that you do not even have to leave the country to avoid paying taxes. In fact all the statist arguments he uses are designed to fit in well with his anarchist replies. hmm what a surprise again he won an argument with himself. Can you not see that there is a logical problem with this? Again read Plato he does the same thing. So once again you are not forced to pay taxes. YOU make choices in your life that require you to pay. It is EXACTLY like going to Walmart and buying a widget. if you take the widget you have to pay. Now, if say Target is on the other side of town but you have to spend 2hrs to get there but they have a cheaper widgets, it does not give you the right to demand that Walmart charge the same or less than Target. You do have the right to go to Target and buy the cheaper widget, it may be inconvenient but that is not the same thing as being forced to buy from Walmart. Until you can explain to me why you are being forced to live in the town you are in as opposed to outside the municipal limits you cannot claim taxation is violence. You choose where you live, not the govt. Your choices oblige you to pay taxes. Do you see the difference? Molyneux refuses to even deal with the question. He mentions it but then ignores it. One of the basic flaws in his argument is that he deals only with the war in Iraq and considers that taxes going to a war are forced (again ignores the fact that you can avoid them if you CHOOSE). Then he claims that all taxes are coercive? Why? Because if you choose to place yourself in a position that obliges you to pay taxes, you are then obliged to pay them? The choice is yours you are not obliged to place yourself in that situation. Molyneux and you seem to ignore that original factor of free choice Basically from what I can tell of your position is that you feel you have a right to all the advantages of living in a society and absolutely no obligation to that society. IE you can take whatever you want from society but do not have to pay for it, or in other words you wish to be a thief and claim it is the moral high ground.

I never get drunk.... I live drunk.

RADII

Actually gvg they do not coincide, please refer to these 2 sites for us tax rates and to your own post on recessions. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States You mentioned the 50's as an example of high tax rates buit there were 2 recessions in the 50's one in fact coincided with the highest tax rate 92% Yes I have some thoughts I always have thoughts Ok what that graph shows has nothing to do with the tax rates. You seem to be implying that the tax rate should be used to regulate the disparity between rich and poor. This i completely disagree with. Taxes should be used to pay for govt and nothing more. If there are inequalities they can be dealt with far more effectively in other ways. The bit about CEO's incomes for example. It isnt that they should be taxed more but that the way their pay scales/bonus structure is made is all wrong. It used to be that the CEO would normally stay a fairly long time with a company and work hard to increase the value of that company. Shareholders would hold them accountable. Nowadays however it is large pensions or mutual funds that hold most of the shares. They could care less about the company and only look at the stock value. this has led CEO's to work only on getting their bonus Ie short term stock increase. If it goes down then they lay off employees or sell of portions of the company just to have a net profit at the end of the year. the overall health of the company is no longer relevant. Air Canada was a great example, the then CEO Milton sold all of Air canada's airplanes after 911 then leased them back. (90% of Air Canadas fleet was OWNED and already paid for, ie no loans to repay) Air canada was the only western airline to post a profit after 911, but at a heavy pricve. Milton made millions in bonus and stock options. later the company approached bankruptcy he organized a plan with a wealthy guy from Hong Kong the plan included him getting 20 million in bonuses for saving the company from bankruptcy. this happened over and over again. Taxes are not the way to fix these kinds of problems regulations are. couldn't actually find this sorry, although it is possible. You cannot believe every statistic you find on the internet. In fact you should be very suspicious of them. I knew your 1.5 trillion number was wrong because it didnt make sense the German economy is too small to have such a surplus. That is why I posted several links I try and find a consensus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve Please note that the first link shows that Sweden has a lower corportate rate than the US and the 2nd shows that sweden has been lowering its personal rate as well.

Ok so on my 6th repost you say you havent answered any of the previous 5 because of something I added to the 6th? Come on UTF admit it, you havent answered because you can't answer and still pretend that taxatione = theft/violence/slavery. Dont be a hypocrite yourself answer my post or admit that you are wrong. a failure to answer I will accept as an admission that you know your premise is false. Sorry havent seen the video yet, puter wont let me see it, but I can answer your arguements here. When I get the chance to view it i'll comment on it. I do not believe I have anywhere said taxation is a great and wonderul thing, nor have I said i agree with everything the govt does. YOU HAVE SAID ALL TAXATION IS THEFT/VIOLENCE/SLAVERY. I can agree with you that some taxes are onerous and wrong (surtaxes being a great example) but I just have to prove to you that 1 single tax is not theft and your premise fails. You have to prove all taxes are theft/violence/slavery for your premise to stand. you keep refering to the war in iraq/afghanistan but ignore the other taxes and just assume if one tax is wrong all taxes are wrong. Sorry you made the blanket statement I just poked wholes in it. I have done so over and over again with municipal taxes and you have ignored my arguements over and over again. I am not the hypocrite here my friend. I just happen to be someone who understands that extremes tend to be disasterous. ¸ Read above I am not a hypocrite and do not believe everything the govt does. I agree with the definition of coerce i disagree with your use of it.

EVIL

SHARP if 0 than E is last as SHARE=1

STOVE

ANGLED

I get no respect, I tell ya..... I went to a pig roast, they put me on the spit

gvg I see your huffington post and reply with this: http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=676 I am not sure what the 50% lower for the rich is in reference to, so I'll ignroe that. However I would like to point out that Germany does not have a 1.5 trillion surplus it actually has a $63 billion deficit. Again I point out that Carter had very high tax rates and a major recession that ended after reagan reduced taxes. I agree with all but the tax bit at the end. Spending is the major problem not tax rates. I think they will have to go up, due to the hole you guys are in, but if it wasn't for the excessive spending then there would be no need for tax increases. That chart is making assumptions. It assumes the rate of economic growth under higher taxes would be the same (historically proven false) It assumes the income to the govt from the higher taxes would follow that exconomic growth. again read the article i linked. heres another http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/02/does-hiking-tax-rates-raise-more-revenue/ Also the Laffer curve http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/02/does-hiking-tax-rates-raise-more-revenue/ And another: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2011/06/why-70.html UTF please note I (tried) to use facts and arguements against Dawh and gvg. I did not try and twist their words but pointed out the errors ie 1.5 trillion surplus for germany. This is called a logical discussion. Claiming everywhere over and over again that taxation is THEFT/VIOLENCE/SLAVERY and ignoring others attempts to disagree is not attempting logical discussion. gvg, dawh Do you think UTF will ever reply to my reposts?

Come on UTF defend your premise! *repost* 6th time UTF are you afraid of the implications of replying to me? ok lets try this, please answer these questions: 1. Are municipalities responsible for water/sanitation and the majority of roads as well as other services? 2. Do the citizens of these municipalities recieve the benefits of these services? 3. By their nature is it impossible to avoid these benefits if you live in the municipality? 4. Do Municipalities raise most of their income through property taxes? 5. Does much of the North America exist outside of municipal boundaries? 6. Are these areas thus exempt from property taxes? 7. Are you free to choose where in North America you live? Now for you to disagree with me you must say NO to one of these questions, please inform me which one it is and why, Then I can begin to try and understand where you are coming from. Quote No (at least I don’t think so), quag thinks that the government taxing me isn't coercive because I choose to trade a certain amount of goods with other people within the United States. I could make the same argument by saying that me taking your computer from you (to my house with force if necessary to get it there) isn't actually coercive either because you chose to produce/trade for a computer. If you, like quag, still can't see that you stealing my property forcefully is coercive regardless of the fact that I chose to produce my property (my money, my computer, etc), Where in any of my posts have I said it was ok to steal? You keep saying taxation is theft. Please read the 5th repost of mine and tell me where I am wrong. Please dont come up with another silly water/computer/slave analogy that has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. You made a claim that I and many others consider absurd ie taxation = theft/violence/slavery. now I have tried to point out where your logic falls apart and instead of answering me you just come up with one false analogy after another. My analogy of the bar with the 2 drink minimum you dismissed without refuting, my pointing out that you can move was replied with the silly Martian post which again I have refuted and again you ignore. It almost seems as though you are so indoctinated in your philosophical almost religous belief that taxation=theft/violence/slavery that you cannot even look at the possibility of it not being true. Instead of assesing and refuting or agreeing with other points of view, you keep restating in a different way your own convictions. Now if you could try and come up with a LOGICAL arguement againt my point of view, I may not agree but at least eventually we could agree to disagree. Instead you insist on ignoring what I say, then claim I said something else that fits in with your own point of view. That is not having a logical, reasoned discussion. I will ask again, will you reply to my post?

TRIAL if 1 than L is last as TRIAD = 0

MINE

PESTER if 0 than O is 2nd as PoSTEd =1 and bitteR=0 its friday im allowed to have misted the hosted

EGRET

HOSTED if 0 than P is first as POSTED = 1

MINE

PANDAS

My brother is such a fruit, he won't stop talking about bananas