BF2S Forums Here's a challenge for you deep end liberals

Dersmikner wrote:

The corporation argument doesn't work.

1. Yes corporations are in it for the profit of the owners. To assume they owe some debt to anyone other than the owners and those with whom they've made agreements is false.

2. Employees work under employment agreements. Those agreements include things like health insurance or 401k plans or severance packages. Even if you work for McDonald's you go to work under the auspices of an employment agreement. Chances are you signed an employee handbook which detailed the terms under which you were employed. If you don't like the deal they offer in the agreement, work somewhere else. If you're willing to accept the terms of their offer in exchange for your labor, you take the job. If they fail to live up to their end of the bargain by raiding your 401k or cutting off your health insurance, you are owed restitution and a court of law will see to that.

3. A corporation's responsibilities to those employees with whom they've made agreements in no way correlates to any potential responsibilities between two unrelated parties. I never agreed to work for or with the welfare recipient down the street. Your company agreed when it hired you to fulfill certain promises regarding pay, benefits, etc. They owe you that. I don't owe the asshole down the street as much as a wave.

... The reality is that 97% of all tax revenue is collected from the top 50% of the tax paying population in America.

Anyone can claim that they don't want their taxes going to some social program, but the fact is - there is a good chance you are already not the one contributing to a social program in any meaningful or significant way. Someone else is - and they are not complaining about a responsibility that they would gladly pay.

P.S. I am not an employee. I am a business owner, an owner of a corporate entity.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-27 10:11:33)

Dersmikner wrote:

It's pretty meaningful to me. I paid more in taxes for the '06 tax year than I used to make. I'm just about to stroke off another tax check for school taxes on the inventory in my warehouse and on my computers, desks, etc. Property tax on something on which I've already paid taxes. I don't even have kids in school (or any for that matter) and yet I'm paying property tax on stuff on which i've paid sales tax, and on which I paid proprty tax last year. Owning it you know means I have to give some money to the government, just for owning stuff. 5 thousand. Due a few weeks ago. I pay late. Screw them...

We all hate taxes... and moreover meaningless tax increases. And no one likes increases that fail to solve social problems they purport to address.

But most increases, are actually symptomatic of a structural problem - taxes will always go up in a fiat monetary system (one structured on gradual inflation & debt). And, fiscal responsibility/accountability to the public seems to be an almost non-existent issue at all levels of the political debate (local & National).

Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-27 10:32:23)

Dersmikner has a lot of words to share and spare, but I haven't seen how much he donates whether it's in cash or social work. Share with us, please.

I guess I could dig out all my old check stubs but if anyone wants to know I'll make a stab at remembering most of it.

I sponsor two little league teams (even though I don't have kids) at $500 a year each.

I do $1,500 a year to the East Texas Angels Network for special needs children.

I put all of my employees into the State Troopers' Association at a cost of $75 a year per employee.

I give $50 monthly to Save The Children.

I'm a sustaining member of my public radio station, and I pay my girlfriend's (we've been together for 10 years so it seems like gf is a bad word) membership as well.

I give annually to Nothing But Nets which provides mosquito nets to families in Africa.

For the last three years I've been one of the three main sponsors of the Children's Miracle Network annual picnic, about $1,000 per.

I'm a member of several conservation groups like Ducks Unlimited, B.A.S.S. and the NRA.

I match any charitable contribution made by an employee, up to $500 a year per employee, from an approved list of charities.

Last year I sponsored any number of events at $100 or $250, a few at $500, including the Race for the Cure, the March of Dimes Mother's March, and the thing for Down's Syndrome kids, the name of which escapes me. One of my employees has a nephew with it.

I reimburse my employees for tuition and books, 100% for an A, 80% for a B, 70% for a C. They have to work for me at the same pay rate after they finish school for a period of time equal to that for which I paid. Last year I spent about $2,500 on that.

I have paid first months rent, deposits, utilities and furnishings for two employees to move from abusive situations into their own homes. Sadly, they both went to shit and ended up with the same type of people, but I tried.

I sponsored our local Neonatal ICU (though in my business it could be considered marketing, and I wrote it off) to the tune of $1,000 at their charity dinner.

I attended the Heart Ball for the American Heart Association for $500 (250 a ticket).

The truth is that I'm sure there are many, many more that I just can't remember at this point. Every week someone hits me for $100 or $200... oh yeah, the charity golf tournaments. We have between 5 and 8 (Gold Rush is $300, Monsignor Whateverhisnameis is $250, there are three or four Memorial Scholarship type tourneys at $200 a piece) a year. Hospice... I sponsor a hole at the tourney for $750, and pay for a morning and afternoon team, and those cost me $2,000 a year. $250 a player, 4 players, and we do the morning and the afternoon.

I give to Marine Corp Vets here in town. I wish I could remember the rest. I'll be glad to dig, but I can assure you I probably go through something well north of $15k a year in donations.

Now, the honest truth is that I don't do ANY, and I mean ANY of the things like building houses or carrying stuff or feeding stray animals or walking for whatever, or any of that. It's not that I'm not in good shape, I am, but I'm better off working for those two hours and paying someone else to do the hammering for me. More hammering gets done, and more money is made. I have paid and sent people on those things, but everyone gets offended so I quit doing it.

None of that is much the point. There are plenty of people who do WAYYYYY more, and there are plenty of people who would if they could.

The whole point of this thread is that there's an entire group of malcontents on this site who bitch about the evil conservative, or the evil capitalist, who think it's either their God given right or the government's to take money from me to support what they think needs to be supported, and I'm pissed that the resal truth of the matter is that most of us about whom they're whining already do more than they do.

I know this is simplified and the math isn't exact, but if you make $25,000 and your tax bracket is 10% you pay $2,500. If someone else makes $250,000 and his bracket is 10% he pays $25,000. Do you think he gets 10 times as much from the government as you do? I seriously doubt he gets as much because he "doesn't qualify" for shit from them. The sad part is that that isn't the way it works. Instead of paying 10%, he pays 39.6%. So really he ends up with a $100,000 tax bill. What the hell is fair about that? Not just a bigger number, because he makes more, but a bigger chunk of his. I guess it's fair for the piece of pie he gives to the government to be bigger than the piece of pie you give to the government because his pie is bigger, but that isn't enough for you greedy fuckers, you want a bigger percentage of his pie. You give 1/8 of your pie and he gives 1/8 of his, well he gives more but I can live with that. What I can't live with is you giving 1/8 of your little pie and asking him to give 1/4 of his bigger pie. That is completely fucked up.

And if you own a computer and have the time to sit around here and bitch about how little the rich are doing to help the poor, maybe you should shut off the computer and go out and do something for the poor your-own-damned-self instead of wasting time fucking around on this deal. If you're that worked up about the plight of the less fortunate, quit spending hour after fucking hour complaining about it and go out and help them. Or at least give as much as the well-off about whom you're complaining.

Perv3rt wrote:

If you don't like the way things are done here then just remember that I am not putting a gun to your head and telling you that you must stay in this country.  Leave!  Take your pathetic, crying, right-wing ass somewhere else!

I'd love to continue this discussion but I'm taking the woman to a fancy restaurant to enjoy a 1989 Mouton with my filet and bernaise sauce. Up yours.

Perv3rt wrote:

I don't fit into the left-wing or right-wing when it comes to politics.

Do you know how to read?  Running off and calling people names when you don't even know where they come from is pretty ignorant.  While we are at it, your arguments would be much more effective if you omitted the cussing.  Cussing in a debate and serious talk only proves that the other person is getting to you.  Not that I claiming to be a master (de)bater.  I don't tell only the right-wing, pompous, blue-blooded idiots to leave the country, I also firmly advocate the removal of all people that are "milking" the system (with the exception of the children, as they don't have a say in how they were brought into this world).   

By the way it is bearnaise sauce, not bernaise.  I mean if I am such a totalitarian, you should conform to the correct spelling.  Say it with me..."Goosefraba."

I like the irony of you criticising all these "20 year old students" for "bitching" here, rather than selling their PCs and donating the money to charity, or putting the time spent into charity work. As opposed to the time you have spent also "bitching" about their "bitching".

It is clear that you do donate a lot of money to charity. In fact, given I am well educated and earn very good money, I am feeling rather inadequate in the support I give to charity. However, given I pay (like in the US) quite a lot of tax, in many ways I am already "donating" a lot to a social welfare network which I happen to support. It is clear you do not (support welfare willingly).

Your diatribe seems directed at:

1. "Liberals" bashing "wealthy Republicans" who should give more to charity. It is clear you aren't capable of being "bashed" for not giving enough, because you would appear to give more than enough. Dare I say you appear to be a generous guy. Therefore, to the extent the liberals are criticising wealthy people who give very little, the criticism would appear to valid. What you appear to be complaining about is generalisations in such criticism, in that some wealthy people do give generously, yet cop the abuse. That is a good point. But the criticism you level at those liberals is also a generalisation.

2. Welfare cheats and slackers. Your criticism seems to be that you shouldn't have to give money to those "that won't help themselves". While it is clear there is a large "bludger" (Aussie term meaning loafer) element in any country with a decent social welfare net, there is also a large number of people who need the help and can't necessarily "help themselevs" for whatever reason. When the welfare net is run too harshly or too tight, then these people get screwed as well. Myself, I would rather pay more tax to ensure they get looked after, at the price of some bludgers. Others, such as yourself, will disagree. In a perfect world the bludgers would be spotted early on and beaten to death with a piece of wet celery, but until Big Brother perfects its method, we won't have that.

Now without knowing anything about the 2 emplyees you helped, you said they went back to abusive relationships despite your help. By your rather harsh methodology, they haven't helped themselves. Does that mean they are failures? Do you ask for your money back? No. Because I assume you know those people, know their strengths and flaws, and can understand why and how that happened.

The point being that in many of these cases, the people who "won't help themselves" and "don't deserve welfare", do have good reasons for not being able to pull themselves out of the gutter. Sweeping generalisations are a good way to not have to think about why they are there, and this happens in the wealthiest country in the world. Some are bludgers, but you'd also have to talk to them to work that out.

For those that help themselves, sometimes the welfare is the extra help they need to get themselves out. Other times not, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth it.

Your world is a harsher one than the one I like the live in.

And the funny thing is we'd both cross the road to be the Good Samaritan, for exactly the same reasons. Because it's the right thing to do. It's when we get out of black and white situations and into complex, real, shades of grey scenarios that the differences become apparent.

Ain't variety grand?!?!?!

Edit for clarity and typos

Last edited by pj666 (2007-07-27 16:19:34)

BN wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Dersmikner wrote:

... The sad part is that that isn't the way it works. Instead of paying 10%, he pays 39.6%. So really he ends up with a $100,000 tax bill. What the hell is fair about that?

This part I agree with...

There should be a flat tax rate - with some exceptions.

1.) Single mothers - getting the biggest break.
2.) And those below $25,000.00
3.) Plus the standard Child Deductions (but those deductions actually should be greater).

That sounds like a really good idea.

I know Australia and Britain look after single mothers very well.

Should children be a tax deduction?

Single mothers need help to raise kids because statistically if the kids aren't looked after they are more likely to be criminals or drug addicts, have health problems, etc. The problem is to prevent poor single women from having kids to get the money.

In Australia, because the fertility rate has done the normal thing for advanced Western countries and dropped below replacement level (without immigration), which is about 2.1-2.4, our government gives tax breaks and money to people who have kids. To make it easier for people to decide to have kids. It actually appears to be working as recently our fertility rate has jumped again. But a number of factors could be involved beyond the "Baby Bonus".

Edit: typo

Last edited by pj666 (2007-07-27 16:23:58)