Friend of the People

Not quite how it happened.

Source: guns-and-humor

↵ Originally from guns-and-humor

↵ Reblogged from antigovernmentextremist

fuckyeahidiotsonfacebook:

“that’s cancer” … priceless.

P.S. don’t you love how that shade of orange almost blends in with her skin?

I normally just follow this blog because the posts are legitimately funny, but this isn’t even funny. Clearly the girl isn’t the brightest, and she and her friends don’t even seem to understand that Obama had nothing to do with Ohio’s taxes on tanning. The more crucial thing ALL these people are missing though, is that if someone wants to do something that increases their risk of cancer, that’s their freaking choice.

I mean, almost everything increases your risk of cancer if only slightly, hell the longer you live, the higher your odds get. In fact, that is the limiting factor on life if you can survive through the hundreds of other perils of the modern world. Eventually, you get cancer and die. So what? Do we outlaw living beyond a certain age? Do we outlaw water since it contains trace amounts of radionuclides? I’m just not sure what people want. The government can not continue protect us from ourselves. The ends of that philosophy are precisely as ridiculous as they sound.

Also, to the person with the M name. you’re*

↵ Reblogged from idiotsonfb

Tax code unfairness as depicted in a pretty infographic.

Or you could just do away with the income tax which is directly in contrast to the spirit of the constitution and unnecessary if we returned the budget to 1999 levels. But hey, what do I know right?

↵ Reblogged from barackobama

libertarians asked

"I think there does come a point (a point we, as a country are no where near) that you have to choose to either infringe upon people’s rights with a certain level of taxation as a government, or to allow those rights to be infringed upon by others." Why not let the people decide the risks?

"Assume the motives are pure, isn’t peace among a countries people paramount to them being able to succeed as a whole?" You're still assuming random areas of land bordered off by men (countries) are special. Countries can't be peaceful because they don't exist; only individuals can be violent or peaceful.

Okay, well my basic point was, that the people in those areas have to find a way to coexist. Men, left to their own devices will not peacefully coexist because of the 1% of the human population that absolutely can not refrain from being evil, so there has to be some safety net in place to defend against those people. It tends to fall to the state to do that, and frankly if anyone else did it, we would probably start referring to that group as the head of state at that point anyway. So do I mind pitching in a few dollars to help promote peace and justice in the area I live in? Not at all. In fact, even if it wasn’t coerced from me, I would donate some of my pay if I were in the position to do so for such a cause.

What liberals don't understand about economics

This is a rough sketch of the dialogue not word for word

Random Kid: The wealthy need to pay their fair share, the top tax rate is what causes our deficit

Me: Its hardly low, and raising it would actually defeat a lot of revenue at this point.

Kid: No they wouldn't more taxes more money, its simple.

Me: Not how it works, do you know why they tax cigarettes so ridiculously high?

Kid: (after some fumbling to understand why they do) Because they don't want so many people having cigarettes to smoke, cuz theyre bad

Me: Exactly, and that's worked, smoking per capita in this country has dropped dramatically, especially in states with high taxes on tobacco products. So that being said, why would you tax the generating of wealth in this country when you know taxing something causes less of it to be created?

allthingspolitical:

Why a janitor ends up with a higher tax rate than a millionaire, and seven more charts that show how the richest Americans beat the IRS. — By Dave Gilson (via Only Little People Pay Taxes | Mother Jones)

Stunningly misleading. Of course the top earners save more in taxes because they pay more. Close to the bottom half of earners in this country pay no income taxes (a good chunk are even net tax beneficiaries). Naturally I have a problem with our government’s corporatist system that favors the rich and connected with various methods of protectionism including tax breaks, subsidies, tariffs, and etc., but the so-called rich, in general, actually pay more than their share of income.

This fallacy reminds me of the Bar Stool Economics parable.

Source: Mother Jones

↵ Originally from allthingspolitical

↵ Reblogged from missdaisyvo-deactivated20110517

Fair Tax

Its been quite a while since I posted, and I apologize. Its been a hectic few months.

With this post I don’t have a ton to say, just to ask, why aren’t we at least debating the fair tax legislation in congress and in the media more than we are? This thing shows up on the house floor yearly with one GA congressmen or another proposing it with 60+ sponsors. Why doesn’t it move more than it does? More important in my mind, why aren’t we talking about this around the country? From what I can see this benefits 90% of the population at least, and if anyone is hurt (besides commercial tax preparers) by this its not even the lower class. The middle class of people who have managed more nice things than they should realistically be able to afford are the ones hurt here, and really they need that kick anyway. Id much rather see their spending curved than have the top 5% taxed just because they have it to give. From what I see this cuts down on tax evasion possibilities, it cuts down the amount of paper work the federal government has to delegate to the inefficient bureaucracy that is the IRS, and it cuts down on the amount of work the average citizen has to do preparing tax returns all the way down to zero.

So to me this makes sense, and I can’t see why this doesn’t come up more often than it does. Perhaps I’m missing it, but I really don’t think I am. This just seems to be another good idea congress sweeps under the rug.

If someone could explain this to me I’d sure appreciate it.

Our government often taxes things at higher rates to discourage them. They do this with alcohol, cigarettes, and other things that don’t promote general welfare and call them “sin taxes.” So then, they obviously understand the very fundamental economic principle that the more you tax something the less of it there will be. Given that understanding, why would they put such high taxes on wealth?