DJ, i love you bro but im not down with this idea. These thieves have tons of oil. Enough to last for 100's of years. There is no shortage and there never will be in our lifetime or the next ten lifetimes. To penalize us with a big tax while these guys are gouging us right in front of our faces isn't my idea of a good way to deal with this. I really don't know anyone who just takes a drive with no destination planned unless it is kids. Im taxed enough and i drive the least amount i can. I don't need another 50 cents on top of that to help me drive less. This democrat who proposed this should be shot. It reminds me of Hillary and Kerry voting for this war because they were to stupid to see a con job right in front of them. Its the Bushies history from Prescott down. Co. con, con. His other proposal about the 3000 square feet is another joke. I also fall in this category. This ****er as you can see has thrown out some red meat to the pigeons on the right. This guy is in way over his head if you asked me. Kinda on par with a guy like Agent trying to handicap. Way over there heads.
50 cent gas tax proposed
- Thread starter DOGS THAT BARK
- Start date
DJ, i love you bro but im not down with this idea. These thieves have tons of oil. Enough to last for 100's of years. There is no shortage and there never will be in our lifetime or the next ten lifetimes. To penalize us with a big tax while these guys are gouging us right in front of our faces isn't my idea of a good way to deal with this. I really don't know anyone who just takes a drive with no destination planned unless it is kids. Im taxed enough and i drive the least amount i can. I don't need another 50 cents on top of that to help me drive less. This democrat who proposed this should be shot. It reminds me of Hillary and Kerry voting for this war because they were to stupid to see a con job right in front of them. Its the Bushies history from Prescott down. Co. con, con. His other proposal about the 3000 square feet is another joke. I also fall in this category. This ****er as you can see has thrown out some red meat to the pigeons on the right. This guy is in way over his head if you asked me. Kinda on par with a guy like Agent trying to handicap. Way over there heads.
We'll I see your back twice Chad but no report 
I think we know the answer-don't we
let me explain taxes and conservatives and liberals
We'll exclude those that pay no taxes as their agenda is obvious--and use the liberal tax payor such as you and Smurph and the conservative-myself in this case.
You- Smurph and other liberal tax payers think increase in taxes for somes reason is fine if for cause--and you band together thinking--yes we are for the cause.
but I see you as group with cause that think they are for higher taxes--yet individually use accountants and every other means possible to lower tax burden every year regardless of cause.
Do you really think there is a liberal that told accountant--lets not take those deductions--theres a war going on--or how many you think didn't take GW's tax break and sent in back?
Maybe we could define diff between lib and cons as ideology vs reality--ya think.
I think we know the answer-don't we
let me explain taxes and conservatives and liberals
We'll exclude those that pay no taxes as their agenda is obvious--and use the liberal tax payor such as you and Smurph and the conservative-myself in this case.
You- Smurph and other liberal tax payers think increase in taxes for somes reason is fine if for cause--and you band together thinking--yes we are for the cause.
but I see you as group with cause that think they are for higher taxes--yet individually use accountants and every other means possible to lower tax burden every year regardless of cause.
Do you really think there is a liberal that told accountant--lets not take those deductions--theres a war going on--or how many you think didn't take GW's tax break and sent in back?
Maybe we could define diff between lib and cons as ideology vs reality--ya think.
You can be sure I'll be back to debate this topic, my friend. Admittedly, it's not one of the caveats that is easy to argue - always advocating for paying lower taxes and cutting all things you don't agree with is certainly much easier and a far more politically motivating argument. Maybe you missed my response to you in the first time I was back - I'm sure democrats were probably a majority at the times you highlighted - didn't argue the point nor did I think it necessary to research something I'm sure you did. Not a factor in my way of thinking, but I'm sure it helps your spin in some comforting way.
The thing remains - you talked about Clinton's gas tax increase, which AGAIN, was less than the two enacted by the previous two republican bastions of lower taxes. So, no matter how you want to spin it, hide it, run from it...Clinton actually is responsible for a lesser tax increase than Reagan and Bush I, and you brought it up, not me.
Facts is facts, sir. But thanks for keeping an eye on Clinton for us...
Will be back to discuss the theories you brought out. Interesting to look at.
The thing remains - you talked about Clinton's gas tax increase, which AGAIN, was less than the two enacted by the previous two republican bastions of lower taxes. So, no matter how you want to spin it, hide it, run from it...Clinton actually is responsible for a lesser tax increase than Reagan and Bush I, and you brought it up, not me.
Facts is facts, sir. But thanks for keeping an eye on Clinton for us...
Will be back to discuss the theories you brought out. Interesting to look at.
Dogs - one more time I'll ask.... how do you expect people making 15 - 20k a year to afford income taxes? This is who the "freeloaders" are with no tax burden. Please tell me how much they are supposed to pay?
And please make this clear in your mind for the record - I am not for higher taxes. I am for balanced and responsible budgets. OK?
And please make this clear in your mind for the record - I am not for higher taxes. I am for balanced and responsible budgets. OK?
I would expect them to pay some--if you took 44 million with no tax liabilty times just $1000 a year in taxes you could pay for a lot of entitlement programs.
I'm for responsible budgets also--however instead of raising taxes on shrinking class of tax payors to fund increased spending--would much prefer to cut the spending.
on added note--did you know we had class of people here where 47% (almost half of them) have no tax liabilty.
I'm for responsible budgets also--however instead of raising taxes on shrinking class of tax payors to fund increased spending--would much prefer to cut the spending.
on added note--did you know we had class of people here where 47% (almost half of them) have no tax liabilty.
Poor or maybe there is not enough high paying jobs for everyone. There in every state. There not just in one corner of USA.
let me explain taxes and conservatives and liberals
We'll exclude those that pay no taxes as their agenda is obvious--and use the liberal tax payor such as you and Smurph and the conservative-myself in this case.
You- Smurph and other liberal tax payers think increase in taxes for somes reason is fine if for cause--and you band together thinking--yes we are for the cause.
but I see you as group with cause that think they are for higher taxes--yet individually use accountants and every other means possible to lower tax burden every year regardless of cause.
Do you really think there is a liberal that told accountant--lets not take those deductions--theres a war going on--or how many you think didn't take GW's tax break and sent in back?
Maybe we could define diff between lib and cons as ideology vs reality--ya think.
Have a problem with this line of thinking, although it is consistent, to be sure. I've asked conservative tax cut proponents repeatedly in this forum - and others - what would be more fair? Wayne, what would be a fair tax rate to pay? None? 10%? 20%? Are you okay with a flat tax across the board where everyone pays the same percentage (what could be more fair than that, right?)? Are you fine with a flat tax and repealing all the tax deductions that only benefit higher incomes, and as most admit lower the tax burden ONLY on those who can afford to take advantage of that? Are you cool with doing away with accountants and just doing a flat rate one sheet income tax report, saving our country and our citizens time, money and eliminates a tremendous amount of fraud and the inability to collect taxes?
On the other side of the ledger, are you ok with cutting all programs in this country across the board to cut spending, or only cutting those programs that conservatives think are important? And, is that fair, if so? What if only the programs conservatives support were cut? That wouldn't work for you, would it? Are you ok with postponing or doing away with tax cuts during times of war, when the expenses of the country are so much higher? And, considering that the current administration was the instigator of the war, doesn't that send a hypocritical message to all Americans - and other countries?
I think that many of the so-called "tax increases" are not that at all - they are restoring existing tax scenarios that were in effect before tax cuts. Semantics? Yes, to a degree. But I submit it's pretty much the same thing - you can blame either, depending on your argument. And many of the highlighted "tax increases" were in place as part of the tax cut plans during the Bush administration, so how can you blame dems for that? When existing planned cuts are merely expiring as part of an agreed on legislation, that's on the people who got that done in the first place, as I see it. At least partly.
Getting pretty tired of the "turn down deductions" theory for current supporters of the tax system and no tax cuts. I can appreciate the personal gain to me in some ways by a reduced tax burden. But I am fine with the current tax system I live in, which allows me to deduct some things that make sense financially as motivation for a certain way of life. Why should I personally give that up when I am not asking to pay less and less? You label me as being somewhat selfish in a sense, because I won't give up what is rightfully due to me by law and the current system that I don't complain about? You, on the other hand, I assume, do the same thing you're talking about me doing, while asking for a reduction in responsibility and criticizing the system. Which stands up to better scrutiny? Up to others, I guess. And again, I could definitely agree to looking at modifying things, and doing away with all of the deductions and paying a flat rate. You cool with that?
Somehow, I feel some wiggling coming up, if this ever gets a response.
Right. I'm sure people working full-time at minimum wage would rather stay at that salary and pay no taxes than make $60K and pay some income taxes. Thier agenda is obvious.
How dumb do you think we are?
Smurph I'm sure they like to make a million--with same effort they used to get the minumum wage--
Unfortunatly the old adage the harder I work/study the luckier I get has a lot of merit.
Who on earth with any intiative makes minimum wage--my wife came here with little knowledge of english-high school equiviilant education (which is next to impossible to verify) and makes about $32,000 a year now after being here 3 years.
Started out at about $22,000 but having never missed a day has steadily climbed.--all this in the most adverse atmosphere conditions-(communication and education).
-if your boys from the hood had half the intiativive--they could do same--except they'd have to get out of the bars-get up before noon and pass drug test
____________________________________
Chad On taxes don't know which would be fairest--maybe sales tax--if you big toys your taxed accordingly--if needed essentials only you get a break. Worse scenerio on this way would be putting accountants out of work, as you said.
I believe I said before --I am for lowest taxes possible but cut in time of war was suspect--however many would argue it was what brought us out of recession and got economy going in worst of times--can't say I agree with that a 100%
Would say raising taxes and restoring them is same thing--if you increase them from what they currently are--your raising them-period.
I don't think your one bit selfish-Chad, on the contrary--Was just my way of saying many people are for concept in general--and might be best intentions but just not realistic.
If people are fortunate in life and want to help those less fortunate--I'm all for it--However believe it should elective through philanthropists and charities. They have way of rooting out the good causes from the flagrant deadbeats--which welfare programs don't.
I'd rather burn my money then see some lowlife as I described in my reply to Smurph--get out of bed at noon and stager down to mailbox to pick up his check at the tax payors expense--I have 0 sympathy for their plight.
Unfortunatly the old adage the harder I work/study the luckier I get has a lot of merit.
Who on earth with any intiative makes minimum wage--my wife came here with little knowledge of english-high school equiviilant education (which is next to impossible to verify) and makes about $32,000 a year now after being here 3 years.
Started out at about $22,000 but having never missed a day has steadily climbed.--all this in the most adverse atmosphere conditions-(communication and education).
-if your boys from the hood had half the intiativive--they could do same--except they'd have to get out of the bars-get up before noon and pass drug test
____________________________________
Chad On taxes don't know which would be fairest--maybe sales tax--if you big toys your taxed accordingly--if needed essentials only you get a break. Worse scenerio on this way would be putting accountants out of work, as you said.
I believe I said before --I am for lowest taxes possible but cut in time of war was suspect--however many would argue it was what brought us out of recession and got economy going in worst of times--can't say I agree with that a 100%
Would say raising taxes and restoring them is same thing--if you increase them from what they currently are--your raising them-period.
I don't think your one bit selfish-Chad, on the contrary--Was just my way of saying many people are for concept in general--and might be best intentions but just not realistic.
If people are fortunate in life and want to help those less fortunate--I'm all for it--However believe it should elective through philanthropists and charities. They have way of rooting out the good causes from the flagrant deadbeats--which welfare programs don't.
I'd rather burn my money then see some lowlife as I described in my reply to Smurph--get out of bed at noon and stager down to mailbox to pick up his check at the tax payors expense--I have 0 sympathy for their plight.
Last edited:
A fair response, Wayne, thanks for addressing my ramblings. I don't agree with you on much of it, but some I certainly do. I'm personally trying to push past the surface on some of these issues, and actually try to affect some change on my end with the politicians that are in place. Just one person, but I know from experience that talking to them personally can have some effect - especially at the local and state legislative levels.
I think the current tax system could be changed for the better. I think the way the government appropriates funds can UNDOUBTEDLY be CHANGED. I think trying to reduce the effects money has on our electoral process is a must, and would help with what we all hate about the current system. I think it's up to each of us to try to change what we see as being wrong with the country. And not just whine about it. Of course, one might have to take an afternoon off of betting and send a couple e-mails, or Google some things, and I know this is the wrong forum to suggest that...
I think the current tax system could be changed for the better. I think the way the government appropriates funds can UNDOUBTEDLY be CHANGED. I think trying to reduce the effects money has on our electoral process is a must, and would help with what we all hate about the current system. I think it's up to each of us to try to change what we see as being wrong with the country. And not just whine about it. Of course, one might have to take an afternoon off of betting and send a couple e-mails, or Google some things, and I know this is the wrong forum to suggest that...
I was just wondering. What do you think of handing our tax dollars over to these farmers for basically nothing? Is this alright with you? How about these faith based programs?
Easiest answer Spongebob-- without farmers we'd starve to death--show me one that doesn't bust his ass and afterwards his efforts are at the mercy of the elements.
What do the deadbeats in our society contibute?
We couldn't live without farmers--but eliminate the deadbeats and everyone wins.
However 38% of are farms now are large corporate company farms. Not like old hardworking family farms. These subsidies are like giving oil companies money. There out of whack. The family farm that needs most the help. Does not get the big rewards.
You make it sound like anyone can just ask for checks to be sent to their house and live off the gov't. I don't think it works that way. I would guess that retarded people should have to learn to live with their disabilities if it was up to you. Its funny also that i owned a restaurant feeding people but nobody handed me a check:shrug: Let these farmers run a company like the rest of us and make it on their own. Since a lot of these farms and religions are in the south i figured this would be okay with you. There are a lot of hard workers all over america. None of them get this handout. Its time you Southerners step up and pay your fair share. You are becoming deadbeats to the rest of us with all these handouts you want. I want these silly Religions taxed and i want these farmers to stand up so we can finally stand down. I will work on the Eastern corruption.
DTB,
It's great that your wife is contributing economically to society. And you may have a good point that large portions of many entitlement programs end up enabling apathy, underachievement and complacency. That having been said, don't you think it's possible that the ability to work hard is as God-given as intelligence, athletic ability or good looks?
If you agree that the ability to work hard (or more precisely, work smart) is God-given, then in my view it's only right to create an economic system where the brunt of the load is placed on those blessed individuals. I'm not saying by any means that our current system is perfect, but I also don't see how pushing to cut off people who weren't born with a good work ethic leads to societal harmony.
And by the way, I hate to agree with you, but another gas tax is a bullsh*t idea. Ask any chemical engineer (USC, 1999) and they'll tell you that petroleum is always going to provide much more energy for the cost than biofuels like corn and sugar. A better move would be to push for more sensible government spending (on roads rather than public transportation and bike paths) and more efficient consumption of gasoline (using gas/electric hybrids and other similar technologies).
It's great that your wife is contributing economically to society. And you may have a good point that large portions of many entitlement programs end up enabling apathy, underachievement and complacency. That having been said, don't you think it's possible that the ability to work hard is as God-given as intelligence, athletic ability or good looks?
If you agree that the ability to work hard (or more precisely, work smart) is God-given, then in my view it's only right to create an economic system where the brunt of the load is placed on those blessed individuals. I'm not saying by any means that our current system is perfect, but I also don't see how pushing to cut off people who weren't born with a good work ethic leads to societal harmony.
And by the way, I hate to agree with you, but another gas tax is a bullsh*t idea. Ask any chemical engineer (USC, 1999) and they'll tell you that petroleum is always going to provide much more energy for the cost than biofuels like corn and sugar. A better move would be to push for more sensible government spending (on roads rather than public transportation and bike paths) and more efficient consumption of gasoline (using gas/electric hybrids and other similar technologies).
Last edited:
agree 100% on cost of bio fuels--gas would have to go to bout $7 a gal for bio's to be economical--then you'd have cost of food increase as by product--but makes both Dems and Rebs look like they are looking for answers.
--and I have no prob with those that are fortunate sharing with less fortunate--if less fortunate are making attempt.
However there are certain elements that are welfare recipients by choice--have no regard for others-and will never attempt to be productive.
Quite easy to spot their domain--walk in any restroom at station near their habitat (caution where boots) and look around-- then tell me how being poor equates with respect for others or personal hygiene--I have pets I can train to use litter box
