Always consider consequences of behavior

steingar said:
Way cheaper to treat an addict than incarcerate them. And I'm a big huge fan of free needle programs. Again, not fair on the face of it. But AIDS affects everyone, and some one who gets AIDS is never again gong to be a solid upstanding contributing citizen.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. And just how many HIV+ people did you interview to form that bigoted opinion?

Paul
 
Tantalum said:
I get very paranoid with other people's cooking in general... I've never been afraid of it being laced with drugs (since I generally find that people don't like to give their drugs out for free) but when people bring baked goods to the office, or any kind of "home made creation" I shy away from it. Who knows how it was prepared, how clean they are, etc. etc. Maybe I'm in the minority
Click to expand...

You obviously haven’t worked in “professional” kitchens. There’s many that are plenty worse than things you’ll find in typical home kitchens. So that problem swings both ways. :)

Tantalum said:
...
from a financial punishment, generally the less money you make the worse off your tax situation is going to be. Even if your actual income tax rate may go down as you make less and available deductions go up (like student loan, mortgage, etc.) your going to be paying a higher share of your money in general to taxes, vs living expenses. The tax on a food, gas, clothes, etc., will hit a poor person much harder than a rich person https://itep.org/whopays/ (that has some great graphs on various states and who pays what)

^^but that's always been an incentive for me to push myself.. what gets me is the automatic resignation "why should I try hard, the system is rigged against me anyway. Rich people suck"
Click to expand...

Never seen a tax on unprepared food. Most places find that immoral and repugnant.

Most rich people also don’t suck, they’re pretty normal. You usually hear only about the ones that do suck. Most of them live in Hollywood or DC.

Meanwhile back on the thread topic... one of our businesses is a call center for people calling in because they’ve failed employer drug screening. For some reason cocaine is the one folks will lie really hard about. I learned this working with one of the Docs on a phone problem one day and hearing her stories of what they’ll all say.

Doc says they get people who’ve tested at levels near death all the time. Someone drives to a collection location totally high or gets high in the parking lot and is close to death from OD while being tested. Regularly.

The “War on Drugs” isn’t working. If it were, our annual revenues wouldn’t be going up year after year. We have quite a brisk business telling people “no, I don’t think you’re going to get the job” over drug use and additions.

And the other scary thing working with the Call Center is catching glances of the company names we have as customers, and knowing general numbers on how many people call in for each.

Let’s just say we have customers who build stuff that could kill a lot of people if built wrong, and their number of employees who test positive really isn’t statistically any lower than any other industry.

Even creepier if you just happen to see some of the job titles on the paperwork.

(AFAIK we don’t have any Airlines as customers.)

I don’t envy Doc B having to deal with addicts. Not at all.
 
A party where cocaine was spread around in a way that one could inadvertently ingest it ? That would be a 1980s stockbroker level of debauchery.

The 'FO' is FOS.
 
denverpilot said:
You obviously haven’t worked in “professional” kitchens. There’s many that are plenty worse than things you’ll find in typical home kitchens. So that problem swings both ways. :)


Never seen a tax on unprepared food. Most places find that immoral and repugnant.
Click to expand...
Yes to the first.

As for the tax, there are any number of states that tax unprepared food - at one time, most states imposed a sales tax on groceries, most either charge no tax or have a lower tax for groceries. In Virginia, for example, groceries are taxed at a lower rate. http://www.tax-rates.org/virginia/sales-tax
 
weilke said:
A party where cocaine was spread around in a way that one could inadvertently ingest it ? That would be a 1980s stockbroker level of debauchery.

The 'FO' is FOS.
Click to expand...

See? The economy MUST be getting better. FOs can now afford "1980s stockbroker level of debauchery". :D
 
Maybe he watched Pulp Fiction one too many times
 
jsstevens said:
See? The economy MUST be getting better. FOs can now afford "1980s stockbroker level of debauchery". :D
Click to expand...

I didn't know that those $10,000 hiring bonuses now get you into the 'snorting powder cocaine from a hookers belly button' league. Prices must have come down considerably.
 
wsuffa said:
Yes to the first.

As for the tax, there are any number of states that tax unprepared food - at one time, most states imposed a sales tax on groceries, most either charge no tax or have a lower tax for groceries. In Virginia, for example, groceries are taxed at a lower rate. http://www.tax-rates.org/virginia/sales-tax
Click to expand...

That’s sad. Taxing food. Politicians must need the money really bad for their lifestyles and big dinner parties. What scum.
 
Everskyward said:
https://www.cbpp.org/research/state...the-sale-of-food-for-home-consumption-in-2017
Click to expand...

Sick. I never knew. I thought more places were sane than that. Even the “we’ll give you a credit” is sick.

Not that it’s a strike against the normal people in those places, since I’m sure that it never comes up for a vote without the State being a referendum state.

If the citizens of those states have referendum power and are still charging food taxes, then that’s just sick.

If your state politicians can’t figure out ways to pay for all the stuff they want without taxing food...
 
denverpilot said:
Sick. I never knew. I thought more places were sane than that.

If your state politicians can’t figure out ways to pay for all the stuff they want without taxing food...
Click to expand...

State sales tax is 5.5% on food, and I'd have to look at a receipt, but I think the county tacks on another 2.25%. The sales tax on non-food items is 7% state, 2.25% county, so 9.25% all in.
 
Here in Georgia the state doesn't tax groceries but local, county, city, does.
 
Bill Jennings said:
State sales tax is 5.5% on food, and I'd have to look at a receipt, but I think the county tacks on another 2.25%. The sales tax on non-food items is 7% state, 2.25% county, so 9.25% all in.
Click to expand...

BrianNC said:
Here in Georgia the state doesn't tax groceries but local, county, city, does.
Click to expand...

Ugly. I see that as just being seriously awful to poor folks. I’m generally fiscally conservative, and not big on the whole “eat the rich” wails of a particularly ineffective political party who claims to help the poor, but man... taking 5-10 % of someone’s ability to eat when they’re impoverished doesn’t sound like we’re very nice folks in this land.

I can see taxing eating out. But raw foodstuffs? Nasty people we all are to allow that.

Well. That is if we truly have a say in it. I’m not sure we really do.
 
denverpilot said:
Ugly. I see that as just being seriously awful to poor folks. I’m generally fiscally conservative, and not big on the whole “eat the rich” wails of a particularly ineffective political party who claims to help the poor, but man... taking 5-10 % of someone’s ability to eat when they’re impoverished doesn’t sound like we’re very nice folks in this land.
Click to expand...

This is a hard one for me. On one hand, yes, taxing basic necessities makes it really rough on the the true poor. On the other, TN has no state income tax, so a tax like this ensures everyone shares in the tax burden. Those getting paid under the table still end up paying their share. Tough one to call...
 
denverpilot said:
Ugly. I see that as just being seriously awful to poor folks. I’m generally fiscally conservative, and not big on the whole “eat the rich” wails of a particularly ineffective political party who claims to help the poor, but man... taking 5-10 % of someone’s ability to eat when they’re impoverished doesn’t sound like we’re very nice folks in this land.

I can see taxing eating out. But raw foodstuffs? Nasty people we all are to allow that.

Well. That is if we truly have a say in it. I’m not sure we really do.
Click to expand...

Preach it, brother, preach! You don’t need valid points or context, just get on that stump and sing out! If you say it enough times it becomes true. ;)
 
Lachlan said:
Preach it, brother, preach! You don’t need valid points or context, just get on that stump and sing out! If you say it enough times it becomes true. ;)
Click to expand...

So you like taxing the poor’s food then? Seems an awful sentiment for Thanksgiving, but go with it if that’s your thing. I see no need for “context” other than it’s a slimy thing to do. Which “context” were you referring to?

If one has no morals, and plenty of food, it’s easy to blow it off I suppose. Enjoy that “point”.
 
denverpilot said:
So you like taxing the poor’s food then? Seems an awful sentiment for Thanksgiving, but go with it if that’s your thing. I see no need for “context” other than it’s a slimy thing to do. Which “context” were you referring to?

If one has no morals, and plenty of food, it’s easy to blow it off I suppose. Enjoy that “point”.
Click to expand...

Your statement of taxing the poor “5-10% of their ability to eat” presumes that the poor spend every dollar they earn on food. 5-10% on grocery purchases vs state income tax? I know which one I would rather have. If someone lives in a state that charges tax on food, but not on income, I think the easy math scores a win for more money in the pocket of the grocery tax payer vs someone who lives in a state with income tax but no food tax. I know how much we spend on food per year, and it’s a whole lot less than what we pay in income tax. ;) And I don’t have that much food, so I guess I must have really low morals. :D
 
denverpilot said:
Sick. I never knew. I thought more places were sane than that. Even the “we’ll give you a credit” is sick.

Not that it’s a strike against the normal people in those places, since I’m sure that it never comes up for a vote without the State being a referendum state.

If the citizens of those states have referendum power and are still charging food taxes, then that’s just sick.

If your state politicians can’t figure out ways to pay for all the stuff they want without taxing food...
Click to expand...
I would have to look at a receipt to be sure, but although groceries are exempt from the VT 6% sales tax, I'm halfway certain that food that is prepared in the supermarket and sold there is still taxed, and it may even be at the "prepared food" 9% rate that applies to restaurants.
 
Lachlan said:
Your statement of taxing the poor “5-10% of their ability to eat” presumes that the poor spend every dollar they earn on food. 5-10% on grocery purchases vs state income tax? I know which one I would rather have. If someone lives in a state that charges tax on food, but not on income, I think the easy math scores a win for more money in the pocket of the grocery tax payer vs someone who lives in a state with income tax but no food tax. I know how much we spend on food per year, and it’s a whole lot less than what we pay in income tax. ;) And I don’t have that much food, so I guess I must have really low morals. :D
Click to expand...

Almost all states that have an income tax don’t charge it below a certain income level. At all. It’s not taken from the pocket of a poor person. They’re below the line for net taxes paid.

Additionally a large but unknown percentage of poor people get paid under the table in cash and it’s essentially not tracked for income tax purposes. Throw in a little homelessness or moving around a lot, and even if the employer reports it, they’re not filing anyway. And nobody’s hunting them down to pay.

None of the homeless people I worked with filed taxes. They’d laugh and say that is something rich people do. Come find me on a street corner if you want to collect Mr. Tax Man.

azure said:
I would have to look at a receipt to be sure, but although groceries are exempt from the VT 6% sales tax, I'm halfway certain that food that is prepared in the supermarket and sold there is still taxed, and it may even be at the "prepared food" 9% rate that applies to restaurants.
Click to expand...

That wouldn’t surprise me and isn’t that terrible. It’s the raw unprepared food taxes that are truly evil.

But all taxation is essentially nothing more than theft, unless you voted for that specific tax. Claiming you voted for it because you voted for any politician is disingenuous. Majority rules is just mob rules with a nicer name on it.
 
Lachlan said:
Your statement of taxing the poor “5-10% of their ability to eat” presumes that the poor spend every dollar they earn on food. 5-10% on grocery purchases vs state income tax? I know which one I would rather have. If someone lives in a state that charges tax on food, but not on income, I think the easy math scores a win for more money in the pocket of the grocery tax payer vs someone who lives in a state with income tax but no food tax.
Click to expand...
The hole in that argument is that the poor probably don't make enough to pay much if any state income tax...
 
Everskyward said:
The hole in that argument is that the poor probably don't make enough to pay much if any state income tax...
Click to expand...

Oh, so it’s possible that “the poor” get a tax refund or credit instead of owing taxes? More money to buy food! Right? Right. The biggest hole in the entire complaint about taxes is that nothing is free. Without taxes how will roads get paved to bring food to market, or to get people to work, or pay for medical treatment, or public assistance, or to pay that refund to the poor, or pave the runway, or put the controllers in the tower? Without adequate revenue from taxation the whole thing falls apart, overspending notwithstanding, of course. Yeah, taxes suck. So does 100% self-sufficiency and homesteading in this century for the average citizen. Like it or not, everyone benefits from things that taxes supply. Some benefit more, some less. Bitching about taxes being nasty or evil is not going to get WIC vouchers sent out to needy recipients. Those things come from taxes. You know how this works.
 
Lachlan said:
Oh, so it’s possible that “the poor” get a tax refund or credit instead of owing taxes? More money to buy food! Right? Right. The biggest hole in the entire complaint about taxes is that nothing is free. Without taxes how will roads get paved to bring food to market, or to get people to work, or pay for medical treatment, or public assistance, or to pay that refund to the poor, or pave the runway, or put the controllers in the tower? Without adequate revenue from taxation the whole thing falls apart, overspending notwithstanding, of course. Yeah, taxes suck. So does 100% self-sufficiency and homesteading in this century for the average citizen. Like it or not, everyone benefits from things that taxes supply. Some benefit more, some less. Bitching about taxes being nasty or evil is not going to get WIC vouchers sent out to needy recipients. Those things come from taxes. You know how this works.
Click to expand...

All true, but it didn’t refute anything stated.

Taxing the poor’s food is evil, and taxation overall is still theft by force, if it wasn’t agreed upon by the individual being taxed.

Some benefit way more than just “more”, entire industries are funded by taxes and usually by debt backed but never fully paid for by taxes. The top dogs in those are wealthy.

Some benefit absolutely zero. They don’t even have paid firefighters or paved roads. No municipal water, no sewer, no natural gas pipelines to homes, not much of anything. Hmm. This sounds familiar.

Saying some benefit “more or less” is disingenuous. It doesn’t show the magnitude of just how much more or less it is. It understates it to make it seem a lot more fair than it actually is.

Especially with debt being the more common way things are really paid for than actual tax revenue collected.

Look at the recent blather in the news about (yet another... YAWN...) new tax plan in DC. All focused on who’s paying. Not a single word about the underlying problem, spending.

It’s about as useful as a family of twelve arguing over who’s going to pay what percentage of mom’s Armani and Gucci shopping trips weekly on the credit card and her penchant for having a brand new car every year.

The whole family is bankrupt, they’re just yelling and screaming about who’s going to pay for it. And they keep voting to give mom a bigger credit card every year.

Pretty stupid.
 
denverpilot said:
All true, but it didn’t refute anything stated.

Taxing the poor’s food is evil, and taxation overall is still theft by force, if it wasn’t agreed upon by the individual being taxed.

Some benefit way more than just “more”, entire industries are funded by taxes and usually by debt backed but never fully paid for by taxes. The top dogs in those are wealthy.

Some benefit absolutely zero. They don’t even have paid firefighters or paved roads. No municipal water, no sewer, no natural gas pipelines to homes, not much of anything. Hmm. This sounds familiar.

Saying some benefit “more or less” is disingenuous. It doesn’t show the magnitude of just how much more or less it is. It understates it to make it seem a lot more fair than it actually is.

Especially with debt being the more common way things are really paid for than actual tax revenue collected.

Look at the recent blather in the news about (yet another... YAWN...) new tax plan in DC. All focused on who’s paying. Not a single word about the underlying problem, spending.

It’s about as useful as a family of twelve arguing over who’s going to pay what percentage of mom’s Armani and Gucci shopping trips weekly on the credit card and her penchant for having a brand new car every year.

The whole family is bankrupt, they’re just yelling and screaming about who’s going to pay for it. And they keep voting to give mom a bigger credit card every year.

Pretty stupid.
Click to expand...
All laws are based on force. That's implicit in the concept of law enforcement. Singling out a particular law by saying that's it's based on force is not very enlightening, IMO. Calling taxation "theft" implies that the democratic process is not valid, but the alternative is either dictatorship, or anarchy. There've been plenty of examples around the world of how those systems have worked out.

I don't dispute your main point, however.
 
Last edited:
It's probably a stretch to call taxation theft, but when the current democratic process places the average citizen as far away from the actual policy making as ours does it can sure feel that way.

I know I'd personally be thrilled if they cut taxes in half and cut government spending/services accordingly but obviously a lot of others wouldn't. There really doesn't seem to be a perfect solution.
 
cowman said:
It's probably a stretch to call taxation theft, but when the current democratic process places the average citizen as far away from the actual policy making as ours does it can sure feel that way.

I know I'd personally be thrilled if they cut taxes in half and cut government spending/services accordingly but obviously a lot of others wouldn't. There really doesn't seem to be a perfect solution.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately when half the income earners aren't paying federal income taxes they no longer are directly concerned about rising taxes.
 
Palmpilot said:
All laws are based on force. That's implicit in the concept of law enforcement. Singling out a particular law by saying that's it's based on force is not very enlightening, IMO. Calling taxation "theft" implies that the democratic process is not valid, but the alternative is either dictatorship, or anarchy. There've been plenty of examples around the world of how those systems have worked out.

I don't dispute your main point, however.
Click to expand...

There’s nothing “democratic” about a tax created half a century before someone was born being levied against them. That’s not democratic, that’s just... well, I can’t think of a good word for it, but there’s certainly nothing democratic about it after the first round of votes that created it. All the people who created ost of our taxes are long dead.

And they screwed up and didn’t sunset them, so they’re pretty much “forever” just due to momentum and the propaganda taught to kids about how good they all are for everyone. There’s zero debate on any of it that matters, and no politician will ever cut them.

When you’re pushing the underside of 50% of every middle wage earner’s gross income going to taxes and still building debt like there’s no problem, there’s a big problem in both the “democratic” process and also in accountability and checks and balances.

It’s theft by a ruling class and forced debt slavery to a system, and that’s all it really is. Calling it democratic isn’t even a mild stretch, it’s pure fiction.

A “no spending” party/political cult (that’s all parties are is cults) won’t ever be popular, so the debt spiral will continue.

PaulS said:
Unfortunately when half the income earners aren't paying federal income taxes they no longer are directly concerned about rising taxes.
Click to expand...

Not having any skin in any game is always a problem. But we have a lot of folks who don’t have any more skin to give. And a majority who believe a lifestyle well above what is earned in total GDP, is owed to them. Needs vs wants is a taboo topic.

You *deserve* all those services and entitlements now. There’s no turning that bus around. You can only change the rate of speed it’s going until the road is washed out ahead.

Just a few easy payments of half of your income for the rest of your life. That’s all the government needs. The company store isn’t a company store anymore, it’s government.

If you disagree with all the other spending, and try to limit it, they’ll close the national parks. Not the stuff that actually generates massive debt. Those never close. That game is always entertaining, since in any other business they’d call that extortion and racketeering.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
This is why I think we should return to limits on voting. Everyone should not be allowed to vote.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree although I think what you mean is, "Not everyone should be allowed to vote.":D
 
PaulS said:
Unfortunately when half the income earners aren't paying federal income taxes they no longer are directly concerned about rising taxes.
Click to expand...
denverpilot said:
Not having any skin in any game is always a problem.
Click to expand...
Tarheelpilot said:
This is why I think we should return to limits on voting. Everyone should not be allowed to vote.
Click to expand...

The flaw in this line of reasoning is that income tax is not the only type of tax, and furthermore, taxation is not the only impact that government has on people. Most laws have nothing to do with taxation, some going so far as having the potential to deprive people of life or liberty.
 
Palmpilot said:
The flaw in this line of reasoning is that income tax is not the only type of tax, and furthermore, taxation is not the only impact that government has on people. Most laws have nothing to do with taxation, some going so far as having the potential to deprive people of life or liberty.
Click to expand...

Taxation by and far has the greatest impact on every citizen as a whole in this country than other government intrusions. I specifically said federal income tax in my statement because it has become one of the most unfair, burdensome tax in this country for many. This is masked by SJWs and their class warfare mantra. Many are too smart to fall for it, unfortunately many do fall for it or understand it is a means to free stuff.
 
PaulS said:
I think the system self selects as it is, those who can't be bothered to register probably would not be informed voters.
Click to expand...

My serious answer is that I have a problem with people who pay no taxes but receive great benefits from taxes being allowed to vote at all. That's why I feel everyone, even the poorest, need to pay something, even if it's only pennies, or they don't vote. Otherwise the incentive is just to vote yourself more and more of other people's money.
 
Rushie said:
My serious answer is that I have a problem with people who pay no taxes but receive great benefits from taxes being allowed to vote at all. That's why I feel everyone, even the poorest, need to pay something, even if it's only pennies, or they don't vote. Otherwise the incentive is just to vote yourself more and more of other people's money.
Click to expand...

This, even though I'm not sure I'd be for it in practice because of other considerations. Also, it is a taboo statement in this politically correct world, BUT it really should be part of the discussion.
 
Rushie said:
My serious answer is that I have a problem with people who pay no taxes but receive great benefits from taxes being allowed to vote at all. That's why I feel everyone, even the poorest, need to pay something, even if it's only pennies, or they don't vote. Otherwise the incentive is just to vote yourself more and more of other people's money.
Click to expand...

Don't think I'd go as far as denying them the right to vote, but definitely agree everyone, corporations too, should pay taxes.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top