A tax analogy, who's really paying their fair share?

Originally Posted by kelly4

He should try to keep as much as possible. But when other people do this, he calls them moochers.

Buck likes to talk out both sides of his neck.

let's get this straight: i call the people who feel that taxation is theft moochers.

sorry i proved all of you wrong after laying a days in the making trap, just gonna have to expect those from me. i lay traps all the time.

Originally Posted by UncleBuck

let's get this straight: i call the people who feel that taxation is theft moochers.

sorry i proved all of you wrong after laying a days in the making trap, just gonna have to expect those from me. i lay traps all the time.

Was that a threat?

You're on a list. LOL!

Originally Posted by kelly4

Was that a threat?

You're on a list. LOL!

the cross thread butt hurt, it is so nice.

Originally Posted by UncleBuck

the cross thread butt hurt, it is so nice.

You're confusing humor for butthurt.

I'm actually cross thread ripping on you, but spin it how you want to, your good at that. LOL!

Originally Posted by UncleBuck

let's get this straight: i call the people who feel that taxation is theft moochers.

sorry i proved all of you wrong after laying a days in the making trap, just gonna have to expect those from me. i lay traps all the time.

Here's a potential situation ....

If a person is taxed for something they don't use, but others that do use it but also do not pay for it wouldn't that make the person using the so-called "service" a moocher and the person paying for it being aggresed against ?

double post

Originally Posted by Rob Roy

Here's a potential situation ....

If a person is taxed for something they don't use, but others that do use it but also do not pay for it wouldn't that make the person using the so-called "service" a moocher and the person paying for it being aggresed against ?

One doesn't have to use a government service to benefit from it. In general social programs benefit society more than cost and are a lot cheaper than prisons. Food stamps for example provide a multiplier of economic stimulus for every dollar spent. Even Milton Friedman while disliking that the government runs these programs couldn't deny that they benefited everyone. His idea was to replace these government programs with a guaranteed minimum income system, funded with a negative income tax. Yes, wealth redistribution... the father of conservative economics is a socialist!!!!

Originally Posted by Fungus Gnat

One doesn't have to use a government service to benefit from it. In general social programs benefit society more than cost and are a lot cheaper than prisons. Food stamps for example provide a multiplier of economic stimulus for every dollar spent. Even Milton Friedman while disliking that the government runs these programs couldn't deny that they benefited everyone. His idea was to replace these government programs with a guaranteed minimum income system, funded with a negative income tax. Yes, wealth redistribution... the father of conservative economics is a socialist!!!!

Diminishing utility occurs with monetary expansion, the first recipients of the 'new money' (wallstreet banks) benefit greater than those further away from the Federal Reserve. As the money is distributed, the increase in inflation offsets any benefits attributed from the monetary expansion, therefore the banks benefit and the people do not. Inflation is bad for the middle class as we are far down the line as recipients of the newly created money... by the time it reaches us, inflation has occurred and price levels have risen.