Being rich and childless means you have to be the suporter of everybody else. Thats communism.
1. Defense spending is too much, we don't need to be able to destroy the world 10x over, twice is enough.
2. No benifits for having kids, ie child tax credit.
3. No indefinite wellfare.
4. flat rate tax ONLY on spending. (A flat rate on earning isn't)
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-04 17:23
Whinewhinewhine, I wannakeepmymoolah!
Grow up.
Name:
Kageshima!W.rJY3yfYQ2005-01-04 19:52
Actually, there are some interesting points in what >>1 has to say there. Marriage and having kids should really be a priveledge, not a right.
Name:
Asmodi2005-01-04 20:57
What about social programs that provide healthcare, shelters for the homeless, etcetera? It's been proven that these programs keep the less fortunate people alive, and they wouldn't exist if it weren't for taxes.
you can be on welfare ONLY if you agree to work and not reproduce. And mentally ill and drug addicted homless (Most of them) should be put in mental facilities instead of recieving handouts then roaming around pissing on the street. Why isn't that fair >>2?
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-05 0:09 (sage)
Someone who can't even spell common words properly complaining about welfare?
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-07 5:44
>>6
If you can still understand what he is trying to point out, spelling does not matter.
My comments regarding what 1 said
1) It's been reduced over the history of the US, and the arsenal we have that can blow up the world 10 times over is already made and probably shouldn't be sold. Dismantling could be an option but that could end up being more expensive. If anything, the 'defense' budget needs to be put to more efficient use.
2) Can't give much comment on this, except it would be nice to know that families aren't churning out kids just because they want more credits.
3) It is needed for the poor, but I always thought there was only a certain amount of time that you could get such moneys before the government cut you off, or perhaps thats unemployment welfare.
4) Interesting. But wouldn't this prevent people from spending more than they need, avoiding vacations and purchases which capitalism runs on?
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-07 6:40 (sage)
4) would lead back to money hoarding. Which was one of the main causes of the great depression. Also, your income is _ALWAYS_ someone else's expenditure.
Its this type of selfish short-sided thinking that put america in such good graces with the rest of the world.
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-07 15:39 (sage)
>>6
You miss the point. If he can't even spell properly, he's close to being first in line in needing welfare somewhere down the line.
lol, as if theres somthing very wrong with communism, capitalism is no different in flaws, no human government is perfect. On the subject of taxes please shut the fuck up. holding down a minimum wage job 6.50/hr CAD (5.30USD, 3GBP) I pay 35% income tax and 5% CCP tax (for retirement) ontop of a 8% Government sales tax throughout Canada, and another 7% Provincial sales tax on everything I buy. This shit adds up. If I make 20,000 a yr I only get 12,000 to keep myself alive and pay stuff off.
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-10 20:17
A nice benifit to those taxes is to pay for free healthcare, decent education, and everything else, better off than the Yanks in that point.......
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-10 22:52
canadian healthcare is crap. (non-poor) americans have far better healthcare.
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-11 0:46
>>15
and poor americans (including me) have no healthcare
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-11 8:27
>>15
It's many just the waiting time...
It's killer, unless you're dying...
to quote "anonymous@10jan20052252"canadian healthcare is crap. (non-poor) americans have far better healthcare."
Look at it this way, Were not paying 200$ for a doc apointment, and we only pay 50$ if we need an emergancy MRI/any other scan. Shure there are somewhat long waiting lists, but if you dont have anything that can kill you your fine and here that is about 90% of the population. Plus we have the ability to mass sell off medication not needed here to you sorry yanks.
I heard canadians want to export restrict drugs because they are being sold to americans at a higher profit margin even though canadia subsidizes them or some shit. Somebody care to explain exactly why they are cheaper? Every explination I've heard makes no sense.
Name:
[P]aul!.QZS18o1Mw2005-01-12 16:47
>Being rich and childless means you have to be the suporter of everybody else. Thats communism.
I think it´s very fair that the rich pay much more than ie the very poor people who have a income of ie 1000 EUR
Think about it: Other people cannot afford to spend so much taxes. So the the question that is left is: Is it fair to support marriage by tax?
Taxes makes the budget. It helps countrys to pay their debts, to support the unemployments, the economy, third world countrys, innovation or whatever your country supports with money.
Name:
Canuck2005-01-12 21:00
a good portion of the drugs sold are both generic, and have production facilities in canada
thats like 1300bucks, they dont make you pay taxes in the states for anything under some ammt
Name:
krunzi2005-02-11 15:02
Being rich and childless means you have to be the suporter of everybody else. Thats communism.
umm... you're a little mistaken there...
beign rich and childless means you have to support the society with a certain amount of your income.. just like the rich people with children, or the bourgoise, with or without children, more or less everybody with or without children.
Now, what you want is that all those people, with less than the rich people, get even less, and the rich people get more. Ofcourse that's all well for the rich people.. but there aren't really alot of those are there now...
i agree with you on the defense point, USA is using way too much money on building... well... weapons.
No benefits for having kids? so we take the poor and uneducated people, who have no money, and no real chance of getting any money, since their parents most likely didn't have any money (social heritage), and who can barely support themselves, and take away the money they get in order to help support their kids. Now they barely have any money for supporting themselves, and no money for supporting their kids.
but hey, what do the rich people care, let the buggers starve to death!
and no, it's not communism, it's social-liberalism.
anyways, the welfare system, again, everybody pays tax, even the people who are not rich, and they pay this so a part of the population who were less adequately placed in life, might have a chance of actually being something, as opposed to what you suggest, where the peple who are rich, stay rich, and the people who are poor, stay poor. They don't even stay poor and rich, it escalates in both directions. This with a few people who manage to get up through the system, and who are then shown as a symbol of the majority and how good things can get for the majority, except it only gets good for the minority.
classic liberalism say that eerybody have equal rights to whatever effort and product they can get witht their body, and has every right to keep this product, or trade it. But it forgets that after a few generations of this, not everybody will have the same possibilities to excersise their rights.
and for communism, communism is an idea supposed to be templated onto an industrialised and capitalist state, like USA. in wich the plebeian class revolutionise the capitalist society in order to first remove the current upper class and middle class, give all power over to the state, and then diminish the state in order to have a alot of small self-sustaining societies where everybody live happily ever after.
This doesn't have much to do with paying taxes, unless ofcourse you see the fact of paying taxes to keep the poor people from getting really poor (and thereby reducing the chance of them wanting to make a revolution as a reaction to their ill-fated situation), as a part of supporting a revolution from the working class to overthrow the upper-class...
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-07 20:03
Tax evasion is pretty straightforward, if the government doesn't know it exists they can't tax it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-09 11:53
>>20
Canadian drugs are cheaper through the government negotiating reduced rates through bulk purchasing.
What Amerifags can't admit is that Amerifags only get good health care if they can afford it. "Afford it" means either paying in cash or buying a fairly good (i.e. rare) health insurance contract.
The rest have to rely on a system that is far below what Canada offers her own citizens. FACT.
What Amerifags refuse to admit is that too many Americans endure a worse system than Canada's. It is provably better to use a delay-prone health-care system (i.e. the Canadian model) than to be unable to get any care at all (i.e. the American model).
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-10 10:58
If RedCream and only RedCream pays for it, sure.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-10 11:26
>>28
They only endure it on average. For those who buy insurance it is the the most sophisticated and advanced on the face of the earth.
>>29
If we're equally taxed to provide for it, it might be worth having. The typical American contribution (including that of employers) via insurance premiums is large enough as it is. Isn't that clue enough that perhaps you're spending too much in the first place?
Each new term in the Fibonacci sequence is generated by adding the previous two terms. By starting with 1 and 2, the first 10 terms will be:
1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, ...
By considering the terms in the Fibonacci sequence whose values do not exceed four million, find the sum of the even-valued terms.
Each new term in the Fibonacci sequence is generated by adding the previous two terms. By starting with 1 and 2, the first 10 terms will be:
1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, ...
By considering the terms in the Fibonacci sequence whose values do not exceed four million, find the sum of the even-valued terms.
Start with ECMAscript.
Implement a simple microcontroller emulator in it.
Write an assembler.
Implement a simple Forth in Assembly.
Implement a simple Lisp in Assembly.
Implement a simple Prolog in the simple Lisp.
Implement a simple Smalltalk.
Implement a Meta-Object Protocol in the simple Lisp.
Implement a Linda Tuple machine.
That would be an interesting course and would cover all of the foundations of programming.
Unfortunately 90% of your students would complain that it involved wasting all of your time learning non-factory work-skills, and would want you to teach all of the material in something useful like Java.
Name:
Wizard of ID2013-04-14 23:44
Wizard of ID by parker and hart
A peasant dressed in black saw an prison cart with prisoners went to debtors prison.
Peasant : "DEADBEAT TAXPAYERS"
M.Slye : "WHAT'S ALL THAT?"
Peasant : "PHOTOS OF MY FAMILY...OR TAX EXEMPTIONS WHICHEVER YOU PREFER"
M.Slye : "THIS IS INTERESTING...ACCORDING TO MY CALCULATIONS
>>1
Agree that taxes suck but they are a necessary evil.
Also your inability to spell proves that schools need more tax money to fund them so that there are fewer idiots roaming the earth such as yourself.
Being rich and childless means you are a homosexual.
I will not challenge your lifestyle choice.
You are entitled to good sex and I'm entitled to bad children.
1. Defense spending is not enough. We clearly don't rule the planet yet. Once we can get our Presidential ministerial pope [A.K.A. "PIMP"] to declare himself as chancellor of the first galactic union, then we can start cutting spending so that the Jedi have a fighting chance against us after we complete a death-star without a exposed vent-shaft.
2. Once again, your faggotry is showing. Hetros gonna hetro.
3. That costs cash to help someone find a job that pays well enough to get them off of the federal titty.
4. There will never be such thing as a flat sales tax. Move to Oregon or some other tax-free state if you are so obsessed with not being taxed as a customer.
Name:
The Unshelved Book Club2013-04-23 14:33
The Unshelved BOOK CLUB PRESENTS THE NUMBER By LEE EISENBERG
"Today is my first day of retirement. I'm here for some reading matter!"
"That sounds wonderful. Speaking of retirement, I was just reading The Number by Lee Eisenberg.
He says most people have an amount of money in mind - when they have that Number they can retire.
Unfortunately most people's Numbers are far too low.
They aren't thinking realistically about how they'll spend their retirement, and what it will cost.
They are overestimating rates of return and the stability of Social Security and pensions. And they are understimating expenses, medical costs, and unexpected crises. They have the wrong Number.