grue 1
Obama was for it, before he was against it, or is it visa versa? I wonder if he knows?
By
rushmc, in Speakers Corner
kallend 2,027
grue******[Reply]So we are talking abut college savings plans here right? Good, lets get rid of all breaks on this shit....
Well, the President wants to make community college free. Probably all college free. So if there's $200k sitting in an account for college, that money isn't needed, anymore. So the government should get it to pay for free community college.
Make sense?
Show me the part of the plan that proposes confiscation.
One could argue that taxes of any sort are a form of confiscation or theft. If you don't cooperate, you're either imprisoned or murdered, depending on your level of not-cooperating.
One could, but it is not the usual and customary usage except among the extreme loony fringe of the tea party.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rehmwa 2
kallendShow me the part of the plan that proposes confiscation.
Let's try an example for everyone else since you are just playing a semantics point anyway -
Kallend puts $50,000 after tax money aside for his daughter's college.
After over a decade, the fund grows to $80,000.
Under the expressed design and intent of the 529 as approved, that $30,000 gain is not to be taxed if she uses it for education.
Now, it's time for her to go to school - Government takes a third to half of it in taxes in direct violation of the purpose of the 529 plan. That portion is confiscated.
That's a hell of lot different type of tax than just everyday taxes that are known up front.
This is de facto confiscation of funds.
- If this were approved, it would essentially be a deletion of the 529 option. Since it would now be just treated like any other private investment.
- IMO - the only way this would even possibly avoid an illegal and immoral result would be if this were approved, it would have to be only on a go forward basis or the US government would be in breach of contract. Any gains made prior to the rule change would have to be safe from the theft. Are they doing that? or breaking the contract with people already in it? it makes a big difference.....
there is already a mechanism to tax those gains - it happens if the gains are NOT used for education.........
it's so incredibly ANTI-EDUCATION that it's ridiculous - it's really just another first step for nationalization of another industry. And just as idiotically and damaging as the ACA. AGAIN, let these guys have the balls to just state their end game and ask for approval (ie, single payer for health insurance, nationalization of post education). These little ratcheting steps are terribly damaging.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
rehmwa 2
grueOne could argue that taxes of any sort are a form of confiscation or theft. If you don't cooperate, you're either imprisoned or murdered, depending on your level of not-cooperating.
directly speaking? sure, why not.
but in practice? no. if the tax is something that is apparent and part of the social contract and known up front then at least it's a known equation
this is different - this is directly in violation of the plan intent
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
grue 1
rehmwa***One could argue that taxes of any sort are a form of confiscation or theft. If you don't cooperate, you're either imprisoned or murdered, depending on your level of not-cooperating.
directly speaking? sure, why not.
but in practice? no. if the tax is something that is apparent and part of the social contract
I really hate that phrase. I never got to choose if I wanted to sign that contract :P
cavete terrae.
SkyDekker 1,465
grue******One could argue that taxes of any sort are a form of confiscation or theft. If you don't cooperate, you're either imprisoned or murdered, depending on your level of not-cooperating.
directly speaking? sure, why not.
but in practice? no. if the tax is something that is apparent and part of the social contract
I really hate that phrase. I never got to choose if I wanted to sign that contract :P
Didn't you move back to the US recently after a prolonged absence?
Seems like a pretty deliberate "signing of that social contract".
grue 1
SkyDekker
Didn't you move back to the US recently after a prolonged absence?
Seems like a pretty deliberate "signing of that social contract".
Irrespective of if I came back or not I'd still have a US passport and they'd feel they have authority over me anywhere I go, and it'd have actually cost money to renounce my citizenship (which is fucked up beyond belief).
Not that I'd have done it, just sayin' that I have a fundamental problem with taxation, especially when I don't really get any say in how that money is used.
It's an imperfect system, as are all of them, I just feel like most of the money that is stolen from me is totally wasted.
cavete terrae.
rehmwa 2
grueI just feel like most of the money that is stolen from me is totally wasted.
remember, they don't think it was ever 'your money'. It all belongs to politicians. and whatever you get to keep is at their blessing and restraint.
They call letting you keep your money (the results of your personal labor) - "reckless spending"
You go pay for a new parachute? NO. The government paid for that parachute - the money you used was just a Pre-subsidy to you. It's much more efficient that way. You need to thank them.
i.e., we all work for them, we get paid nothing, but they are good overlords that will provide food and shelter - if they feel like it
Edit: too cynical?
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
grue 1
rehmwa*** I just feel like most of the money that is stolen from me is totally wasted.
remember, they don't think it was ever 'your money'. It all belongs to politicians. and whatever you get to keep is at their blessing and restraint.
They call letting you keep your money (the results of your personal labor) - "reckless spending"
You go pay for a new parachute? NO. The government paid for that parachute - the money you used was just a Pre-subsidy to you. It's much more efficient that way. You need to thank them.
i.e., we all work for them, we get paid nothing, but they are good overlords that will provide food and shelter - if they feel like it
Edit: too cynical?
Sounds about right.
Interestingly, I was called cynical when I said that the only reason the government cares about murder, suicide, or anything else that causes death before retirement age is because they lose taxpayers when it happens. I don't actually think I'm incorrect, though.
cavete terrae.
Bolas 5
rehmwa***One could argue that taxes of any sort are a form of confiscation or theft. If you don't cooperate, you're either imprisoned or murdered, depending on your level of not-cooperating.
directly speaking? sure, why not.
but in practice? no. if the tax is something that is apparent and part of the social contract and known up front then at least it's a known equation
this is different - this is directly in violation of the plan intent
Glad this was stopped. Had it succeeded, ROTH could've been a future target.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteNot that I'd have done it, just sayin' that I have a fundamental problem with taxation, especially when I don't really get any say in how that money is used.
Yet you have no problem with using tax funded services...
Nobody likes paying taxes, but taxation is needed to run a country.
rushmc 23
SkyDekkerQuoteNot that I'd have done it, just sayin' that I have a fundamental problem with taxation, especially when I don't really get any say in how that money is used.
Yet you have no problem with using tax funded services...
Nobody likes paying taxes, but taxation is needed to run a country.
why do guys like you take statments like his and runs to stupid extremes?
Pure BS on your part
Sheesh
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
grue 1
SkyDekkerQuoteNot that I'd have done it, just sayin' that I have a fundamental problem with taxation, especially when I don't really get any say in how that money is used.
Yet you have no problem with using tax funded services...
Nobody likes paying taxes, but taxation is needed to run a country.
To run a country? Sure. But it could be a lot cheaper to run our country than it is, that's where my problem really is in the end: waste. If they quit throwing away so much money on stupid bullshit, they can steal less money from us to try and make up for it.
cavete terrae.
Stumpy 284
grue***
QuoteNot that I'd have done it, just sayin' that I have a fundamental problem with taxation, especially when I don't really get any say in how that money is used.
Yet you have no problem with using tax funded services...
Nobody likes paying taxes, but taxation is needed to run a country.
To run a country? Sure. But it could be a lot cheaper to run our country than it is, that's where my problem really is in the end: waste. If they quit throwing away so much money on stupid bullshit, they can steal less money from us to try and make up for it.
And here's the root of the problem. Everyone has a different idea of what "Stupid bullshit" is.
Never try to eat more than you can lift
grue 1
Stumpy******
QuoteNot that I'd have done it, just sayin' that I have a fundamental problem with taxation, especially when I don't really get any say in how that money is used.
Yet you have no problem with using tax funded services...
Nobody likes paying taxes, but taxation is needed to run a country.
To run a country? Sure. But it could be a lot cheaper to run our country than it is, that's where my problem really is in the end: waste. If they quit throwing away so much money on stupid bullshit, they can steal less money from us to try and make up for it.
And here's the root of the problem. Everyone has a different idea of what "Stupid bullshit" is.
The war on Iraq has been quoted at around $2T, that's around $8,300 total per taxpayer based on around 250M taxpayers, but is hard to break down on a per-year basis.
Stop US military support of Israel and we save about $12 per taxpayer per year, based on $3B/yr to Israel.
Egypt gets another $6 per taxpayer per year for their military.
I'm not sure we'll ever see how much it's actually costing us to kill foreigners and our own citizens overseas with drones, but I'm sure that it's more expensive than not doing it.
No-bid contracts and general cronyism aren't cheap, but of course we can only guess at how much is wasted there.
The F-35 program… well, we can just leave it at that.
So on, so forth.
Hell, the IRS itself costs taxpayers about $45 per year because the US tax code is so god damned overcomplicated that it takes an army to figure it out.
This is just the low-hanging fruit, too. Our insanely fucked up social security and medicare? Sure as hell could be done more cheaply.
cavete terrae.
Stumpy 284
And fwiw I agree with most of what you said, but most of the Repub supporters on this site will disagree.
Never try to eat more than you can lift
grue 1
StumpyAnd fwiw I agree with most of what you said, but most of the Repub supporters on this site will disagree.
Oh I haven't even gotten to the FUN stuff.
TARP?
Farm subsidies?
Pure fraud? Here's a fun one:
"A GAO audit classified nearly half of all purchases on government credit cards as improper, fraudulent, or embezzled. Examples of taxpayer-funded purchases include gambling, mortgage payments, liquor, lingerie, iPods, Xboxes, jewelry, Internet dating services, and Hawaiian vacations. In one extraordinary example, the Postal Service spent $13,500 on one dinner at a Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, including "over 200 appetizers and over $3,000 of alcohol, including more than 40 bottles of wine costing more than $50 each and brand-name liquor such as Courvoisier, Belvedere and Johnny Walker Gold." The 81 guests consumed an average of $167 worth of food and drink apiece."
Seems reasonable.
This is from 2007, but:
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon insists it has enough C-17 Globemaster jets, which are partly manufactured in Texas and used by the Air Force to ferry troops and weapons to hot spots around the globe.
Nevertheless, lawmakers from the Lone Star State and elsewhere recently inserted in a defense authorization bill a requirement that the military buy 10 more aircraft at a cost of $2.4 billion.
Earmarks and pork barrel bullshit.
And yet, people keep reelecting the people that do this. It blows my mind.
cavete terrae.
rushmc 23
grue***And fwiw I agree with most of what you said, but most of the Repub supporters on this site will disagree.
Oh I haven't even gotten to the FUN stuff.
TARP?
Farm subsidies?
Pure fraud? Here's a fun one:
"A GAO audit classified nearly half of all purchases on government credit cards as improper, fraudulent, or embezzled. Examples of taxpayer-funded purchases include gambling, mortgage payments, liquor, lingerie, iPods, Xboxes, jewelry, Internet dating services, and Hawaiian vacations. In one extraordinary example, the Postal Service spent $13,500 on one dinner at a Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, including "over 200 appetizers and over $3,000 of alcohol, including more than 40 bottles of wine costing more than $50 each and brand-name liquor such as Courvoisier, Belvedere and Johnny Walker Gold." The 81 guests consumed an average of $167 worth of food and drink apiece."
Seems reasonable.
This is from 2007, but:
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon insists it has enough C-17 Globemaster jets, which are partly manufactured in Texas and used by the Air Force to ferry troops and weapons to hot spots around the globe.
Nevertheless, lawmakers from the Lone Star State and elsewhere recently inserted in a defense authorization bill a requirement that the military buy 10 more aircraft at a cost of $2.4 billion.
Earmarks and pork barrel bullshit.
And yet, people keep reelecting the people that do this. It blows my mind.
And the cost per uninsured person covered is 50,000 as reported the CBO this week (1.35 T)
BTW I agree with much of what you posted above too
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
champu 1
SkyDekkerThe comment section of the dailycaller.com is gold
rushmc 23
champu***The comment section of the dailycaller.com is gold
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rehmwa 2
StumpyAnd fwiw I agree with most of what you said, but most of the Repub supporters on this site will disagree.
you're a bit partisan in that comment
I agree with what he said too. I was going to post to Grue that he just opened himself up to one crowd 'agreeing except for the war parts' and the other crowd 'agreeing except for the entitlement parts'
and then the vigorously argue why their subjective opinions are absolutely valid while the other guys' subjective opinions are silly and based on evil
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
QuoteEarmarks and pork barrel bullshit.
This one gives me the red ass more than anything else! Simple bill with a cause and funding with 500 pages of bullshit and other spending tacked on so no one will notice, and so other will vote for it.
Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,
SkyDekker 1,465
grue***
QuoteNot that I'd have done it, just sayin' that I have a fundamental problem with taxation, especially when I don't really get any say in how that money is used.
Yet you have no problem with using tax funded services...
Nobody likes paying taxes, but taxation is needed to run a country.
To run a country? Sure. But it could be a lot cheaper to run our country than it is, that's where my problem really is in the end: waste. If they quit throwing away so much money on stupid bullshit, they can steal less money from us to try and make up for it.
I get what you are saying. I just don't agree with your terminology. Cheap and value are not the same thing. Personalyl I don't think that running a country as cheap as possible should be the goal. Getting the most value out of expenditures and investments should be.
Obviously I understand that value is an extremely subjective measure, which is where the arguments will always end up.
kallend 2,027
grue******One could argue that taxes of any sort are a form of confiscation or theft. If you don't cooperate, you're either imprisoned or murdered, depending on your level of not-cooperating.
directly speaking? sure, why not.
but in practice? no. if the tax is something that is apparent and part of the social contract
I really hate that phrase. I never got to choose if I wanted to sign that contract :P
The US Code of Federal Regulations runs to tens of thousands of pages. How many of them did you explicitly agree, with your signature, to abide by?
The CFR is divided into 50 titles that represent broad subject areas:
Title 1: General Provisions
Title 2: Grants and Agreements
Title 3: The President
Title 4: Accounts
Title 5: Administrative Personnel
Title 6: Domestic Security
Title 7: Agriculture
Title 8: Aliens and Nationality
Title 9: Animals and Animal Products
Title 10: Energy
Title 11: Federal Elections
Title 12: Banks and Banking
Title 13: Business Credit and Assistance
Title 14: Aeronautics and Space (also known as the Federal Aviation Regulations)
Title 15: Commerce and Foreign Trade
Title 16: Commercial Practices
Title 17: Commodity and Securities Exchanges
Title 18: Conservation of Power and Water Resources
Title 19: Customs Duties
Title 20: Employees' Benefits
Title 21: Food and Drugs
Title 22: Foreign Relations
Title 23: Highways
Title 24: Housing and Urban Development
Title 25: Indians
Title 26: Internal Revenue (also known as the Treasury Regulations)
Title 27: Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms
Title 28: Judicial Administration
Title 29: Labor
Title 30: Mineral Resources
Title 31: Money and Finance: Treasury
Title 32: National Defense
Title 33: Navigation and Navigable Waters
Title 34: Education
Title 35: Reserved (formerly Panama Canal)
Title 36: Parks, Forests, and Public Property
Title 37: Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights
Title 38: Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans' Relief
Title 39: Postal Service
Title 40: Protection of Environment
Title 41: Public Contracts and Property Management
Title 42: Public Health
Title 43: Public Lands: Interior
Title 44: Emergency Management and Assistance
Title 45: Public Welfare
Title 46: Shipping
Title 47: Telecommunication
Title 48: Federal Acquisition Regulations System
Title 49: Transportation
Title 50: Wildlife and Fisheries
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Well, the President wants to make community college free. Probably all college free. So if there's $200k sitting in an account for college, that money isn't needed, anymore. So the government should get it to pay for free community college.
Make sense?
Show me the part of the plan that proposes confiscation.
One could argue that taxes of any sort are a form of confiscation or theft. If you don't cooperate, you're either imprisoned or murdered, depending on your level of not-cooperating.