|
Post by clemiethedog on Jan 25, 2010 16:23:31 GMT
TAXMAN, recorded by the Beatles, 1966 Words and Music by George Harrison (with assistence from John Lennon for the "pennies on your eyes")
One, two, three, four... Hrmm! One, two, (one, two, three, four!)
Let me tell you how it will be; There's one for you, nineteen for me. 'Cause I�m the taxman, Yeah, I�m the taxman.
Should five per cent appear too small, Be thankful I don't take it all. 'Cause I�m the taxman, Yeah, I�m the taxman.
(if you drive a car, car;) - I�ll tax the street; (if you try to sit, sit;) - I�ll tax your seat; (if you get too cold, cold;) - I�ll tax the heat; (if you take a walk, walk;) - I'll tax your feet.
Taxman!
'Cause I�m the taxman, Yeah, I�m the taxman.
Don't ask me what I want it for, (ah-ah, mister Wilson) If you don't want to pay some more. (ah-ah, mister heath) 'Cause I�m the taxman, Yeah, I�m the taxman.
Now my advice for those who die, (taxman) Declare the pennies on your eyes. (taxman) 'Cause I�m the taxman, Yeah, I�m the taxman.
And you're working for no one but me.
Taxman!
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Jan 25, 2010 16:38:28 GMT
I see your gasoline tax is 44.75 cents a gallon. And you think THAT is high? We are paying over £5 a gallon these days. Over 65% of that is tax. And at an exchange rate of $1.60 dollars to the pound, you would be paying 8 dollars a gallon. How does that sound?
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 26, 2010 0:27:22 GMT
I see your gasoline tax is 44.75 cents a gallon. And you think THAT is high? We are paying over £5 a gallon these days. Over 65% of that is tax. And at an exchange rate of $1.60 dollars to the pound, you would be paying 8 dollars a gallon. How does that sound? Yes Ben, I think 44.75¢ per gallon is excessive. I love traveling in Europe. The people, food, scenery, and history are great. The governments suck. Excessive taxation is rampant over there. It sucks. Can't think of any better word for it that "sucks". Gasoline prices in Europe are an insult to our intelligence. Those taxes came about because the governments didn't want traffic congestion. Their logic went something like this: We have these medieval cities with narrow streets and limited parking. Therefore we need to discourage the use of automobiles and get people to ride the trains and busses. We can do that by levying a very high gasoline tax and imposing high tolls on our express highways.' As you sit there in bumper to bumper traffic tie-ups you should think about this. In their cockamamie theories you weren't suppose to have traffic jams because of the high gasoline taxes and road tolls. Now you have both. The solution is to vote those folks out of office and replace them with someone with at least half a brain.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 26, 2010 12:00:13 GMT
the poll tax would have been a far fairer tax than the present community charge...but the left[labour] didnt like it Er, I think you have got all your facts mixed up as usual. The 'Community Charge' was the offical name for the poll tax. The current Council Tax was invented by the Tories. no fact mixed up...the poll tax would have been fairer than the present community charge...as usual you are nit picking labourites hated the thought of the poll tax...or dont you remember
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 26, 2010 12:41:41 GMT
no fact mixed up...the poll tax would have been fairer than the present community charge...as usual you are nit picking labourites hated the thought of the poll tax...or dont you remember This is why I stopped posting in Peter's freespeech. You get your facts mixed up nor do you have a clue what you are talking about. and then defend your silly ideas to the hilt. The poll tax and the Community charge where the same thing. The present system is the Council tax which the Tories replaced the poll tax/community charge with. The poll tax/community was hated, because it was unfair, even more unfair than the council tax which is also unfair.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 26, 2010 12:52:54 GMT
Yes Ben, I think 44.75¢ per gallon is excessive. I love traveling in Europe. The people, food, scenery, and history are great. The governments suck. Excessive taxation is rampant over there. It sucks. Can't think of any better word for it that "sucks". Who are you to describe European Governments as sucking? These Governments do so bad a job that they manage to produce Countries that work. Countries that attract people like you to it. Decent roads, decent economies, decent cultures. If you are not happy with Europe why don't holiday in your own Country instead? The day we vote for halfwits like George Bush then we will have ruined this contitent
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 27, 2010 11:09:44 GMT
The day we vote for halfwits like George Bush then we will have ruined this contitent """"
lol...harriet harman....lol
Who are you to describe European Governments as sucking?"""but he is correct..we have the the bigest bunch of corruption suporting halfwits and liars its ever been possible to gather under one roof and thats only the uk then you have the europeans who are just as bad...they also love corruption ..criminals and lies.... for proof look no further than brussels..
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 27, 2010 17:17:55 GMT
@rv - Europe has a long history of enabling rotten governments despite having great people, great history, great scenery, great private enterprises, and great culture (food in France and Italy especially). For example, you have the Nazis (elected by the people), Mussolini, and Franco. Do you really think European governments have anything to do with successes in those countries. I had a chat with a restaurant owner in the Dordogne last September. With the government regulations on employment he's finding it difficult to stay open. To him, the government is a ball and chain around his ankle.
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Jan 31, 2010 17:04:57 GMT
If your friend’s problems with government meddling have to do with the FDA, OSHA, or other protective measures, I’d be reluctant to patronize his establishment.
Furthermore, I am often amazed at how often many European social safety nets are compared to the previous totalitarian governments. It’s as if the current Federal Republic of Germany bares little difference with the Nazi regime that was defeated in 1945. Many social programs there started during the Hohenzollern regime. It wasn't because Bismark had a great love for the unfortunate, but rather a respect for the masses. Democracy is designed to replace the marketplace with the polling place, to check the abuses of the rich and powerful. something that escapes the US right wing Republicans.
There is nothing morally inconsistent with a society that provides for its less fortunate, and in fact many of those egalitarian principles guarantee that all individuals have an equal opportunity to succeed. The public school system in Denmark is an example. They enjoy an excellent standard of living and quality of life, despite having few natural resources and a limited manufacturing capacity. Compare that to the United States, which enjoys an abundance of both, yet has miserable and uninhabitable slums and few opportunities for those stuck there. Great McMansions, though, in the affluent areas.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 31, 2010 19:58:10 GMT
Yes Ben, I think 44.75¢ per gallon is excessive. I love traveling in Europe. The people, food, scenery, and history are great. The governments suck. Excessive taxation is rampant over there. It sucks. Can't think of any better word for it that "sucks". you certainly get to be right there, particularly since you have the example of how dumbya ruined this country Who are you to describe European Governments as sucking? These Governments do so bad a job that they manage to produce Countries that work. Countries that attract people like you to it. Decent roads, decent economies, decent cultures. If you are not happy with Europe why don't holiday in your own Country instead? The day we vote for halfwits like George Bush then we will have ruined this contitent
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 31, 2010 20:00:19 GMT
If your friend’s problems with government meddling have to do with the FDA, OSHA, or other protective measures, I’d be reluctant to patronize his establishment. Furthermore, I am often amazed at how often many European social safety nets are compared to the previous totalitarian governments. It’s as if the current Federal Republic of Germany bares little difference with the Nazi regime that was defeated in 1945. Many social programs there started during the Hohenzollern regime. It wasn't because Bismark had a great love for the unfortunate, but rather a respect for the masses. Democracy is designed to replace the marketplace with the polling place, to check the abuses of the rich and powerful. something that escapes the US right wing Republicans. There is nothing morally inconsistent with a society that provides for its less fortunate, and in fact many of those egalitarian principles guarantee that all individuals have an equal opportunity to succeed. The public school system in Denmark is an example. They enjoy an excellent standard of living and quality of life, despite having few natural resources and a limited manufacturing capacity. Compare that to the United States, which enjoys an abundance of both, yet has miserable and uninhabitable slums and few opportunities for those stuck there. Great McMansions, though, in the affluent areas. the unfortunate thing is that das, and those he follows, believe that only those who make millions by robbing from the normal people should live in houses, and everyone else should be in tents, or worse.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 31, 2010 20:29:38 GMT
Jumbo you might be getting a little carried away. I'm not a big fan of rich people nor do I champion their interests.
I'm simply against a government that confiscates funds from the successful members of society (not only the rich, those of us who pay taxes) in the form of excessive taxation and then redistributes those same funds to members of special interest groups in order to get their votes. I think a pretty generous description of our Democratic Party and their long-standing game plan for getting and holding power.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 31, 2010 21:54:07 GMT
Jumbo you might be getting a little carried away. I'm not a big fan of rich people nor do I champion their interests. I'm simply against a government that confiscates funds from the successful members of society (not only the rich, those of us who pay taxes) in the form of excessive taxation and then redistributes those same funds to members of special interest groups in order to get their votes. I think a pretty generous description of our Democratic Party and their long-standing game plan for getting and holding power. i would have nothing against rich people, IF they earned their money. the thing is, the number that do is miniscule. even the sports stars who make twenty million a year, and actually do something for it, do not EARN it. there is not a swinging you know what who is actually worth ten million a year. nonetheless, NO rational person can contend that some fool who sits on his dead azz should get over four hundred times as much as a real person who actually does something constructive. since the overwhelming majority of the rich fall into the former category, there is nothing unfair about a sizable portion of their income going to provide the necessities for those who are, through no fault of their own, unable to provide for themselves, and for necessary government services, such as regulatory boards. it is because of the republican's incessant endeavors to rob from the poor and middle class in order to enrich the already rich, that you feel a pinch. the reality is that, there would be no necessity for income tax for anyone making $250,000 or less if those making more paid their fair share
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 31, 2010 22:13:37 GMT
a classic example, which is the rule, rather than the exception, is the management of aig. these imbeciles don't even come close to earning the unconscionable salaries that they are given, yet, after running the company into bankruptcy, are given millions more in bonuses. republicans love it. the epitome of the so called free market
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Feb 1, 2010 1:36:32 GMT
No Jumbo, Republicans are not at all happy about excesses like AIG and Enron. Quite the opposite.
That's not the central issue here. This is:
I'm simply against a government that confiscates funds from the successful members of society (not only the rich, those of us who pay taxes) in the form of excessive taxation and then redistributes those same funds to members of special interest groups in order to get their votes. I think a pretty generous and very accurate description of our Democratic Party and their long-standing game plan for getting and holding power.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 1, 2010 12:12:16 GMT
No Jumbo, Republicans are not at all happy about excesses like AIG and Enron. Quite the opposite. That's not the central issue here. This is: I'm simply against a government that confiscates funds from the successful members of society (not only the rich, those of us who pay taxes) in the form of excessive taxation and then redistributes those same funds to members of special interest groups in order to get their votes. I think a pretty generous and very accurate description of our Democratic Party and their long-standing game plan for getting and holding power. how do you figure? aig and ken lay are republicans, practicing reagonomics as he preached it again, it wouldn't be necessary for the middle class to pay taxes if the rich paid their fair share
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Feb 1, 2010 21:39:59 GMT
I'm certainly in favor of everyone paying their fair share. I think a flat tax amounting to about 10% of one's income, regardless of income level, would be getting pretty close to 'fair.' But you lefties think a graduated income tax is fair. No way.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Feb 2, 2010 11:58:26 GMT
I'm certainly in favor of everyone paying their fair share. I think a flat tax amounting to about 10% of one's income, regardless of income level, would be getting pretty close to 'fair.' But you lefties think a graduated income tax is fair. No way. I don't think it's 'lefties' alone who supoprt graduated income tax. Regressive taxation is seen as unfair, divisive and bad politics by the vast majority of politicians and economists. Rather it is a tiny group of far-right people who supoprt flat taxes.
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Feb 3, 2010 0:36:36 GMT
"I think a flat tax amounting to about 10% of one's income, regardless of income level, would be getting pretty close to 'fair.' "
that is anything but "fair", and definitely the least efficient way to finance public spending. Flat taxes are a form of tyranny designed to damage the bourgeois. Steve Forbes, for example, proposed a flat tax because it would benefit Steve Forbes. Period. He may wear a flag lapel pin, but he sure as hell isn't patriotic.
Progressive taxation is the only proven method, yet US conservatives are determined to ruin them and corrupt its concept. We now have sales taxes, caps on Social Security and Medicare taxes, lowered capital gains taxes, and estate taxes (certainly the ‘fairest’ method of taxation) demonized as ‘death taxes’ (oh poor Paris Hilton!). “Fairness” is merely a buzz word for those with a different motive and agenda.
The salient point is that if one is in the top 2% in the richest country in the world may be pissed about paying more taxes, but let's face reality here. Because the well off/wealthy have a much higher % of disposable income than others, so taxing them at the same rate is just passing the burden on to those who can less afford to pay.
There's an argument that the same rate for everyone is "fair." There's an argument that the same amount from everyone is "fair." There's an argument that from each according to his ability to pay (however defined) is "fair." I'm not saying these are all equivalents; some may be more persuasive than others. But you can't just say "this is fair" and assume it is true. It’s an arbitrary assumption and thus only the practical and efficient methods are worthy of discussion. 10% per head just won’t cut it, das; not with a massive military build-up and endless proxy wars that Republicans, such as George W. Bush, tout.
Taxes are either going to be paid by those who can most afford to do so or by those who are less able. But of course, in the US, asking the very well-off to contribute the same or even a little higher % than the middle class is "class warfare."
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Feb 3, 2010 0:40:49 GMT
I see your gasoline tax is 44.75 cents a gallon. And you think THAT is high? We are paying over £5 a gallon these days. Over 65% of that is tax. And at an exchange rate of $1.60 dollars to the pound, you would be paying 8 dollars a gallon. How does that sound? I think it comes down to real estate. US transportation firms travel many more miles, and if gas taxes become too high, there could be inflationary effects to consider.
|
|