Sounds like you don't have any deductions to take, so the question is moot as far as you are concerned. It's easy to say I don't take deductions when you don't have any.

 

Sounds like he did the same thing as Murdoch until he was no longer able to and now wants to take that opportunity away from others. Classic!

You also can't describe something as welfare when you allow them to keep more of their own money. The money is not the governments, the government has no money. Only the money we as the people aloof them to have.

 

The Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell is strong in you.

How much more can you tax gasoline? Jeesh. The lack of creativity and common sense astounds me.

How much more can you tax gasoline? Jeesh. The lack of creativity and common sense astounds me.

 

What is your alternative solution?

You just made my point. The government doesn't have money or earn money. They tax and us citizens for money. It isn't welfare for an individual or a corporation to keep more of their money. If they cut the income tax and I get to keep more of my own earned income that isn't welfare. If I file a dedeuctions on my tax form that isn't welfare.

 

Welfare is giving money to someone they didn't earn or create on their own.

 

Please continue with your talking points and I'll continue to correct you.

Sounds like (a) you don't feel you personally need to pay for the right to live in the greatest country on earth (if you can get away with it like some large corporations do) or (b) you have some strange notion that there ought to be a public referendum on every government expenditure.

 

That ain't the way the economics work in a representative democracy. Don't like the way your tax dollars are being spent? Elect someone different to make monetary decisions.

 

In any event, it's probably time to take another look at your illogical canard that since it's the "people's money," it can only be spent in certain ways. No. That's not correct.

Sounds like (a) you don't feel you personally need to pay for the right to live in the greatest country on earth (if you can get away with it like some large corporations do) or (b) you have some strange notion that there ought to be a public referendum on every government expenditure.

 

That ain't the way the economics work in a representative democracy. Don't like the way your tax dollars are being spent? Elect someone different to make monetary decisions.

 

In any event, it's probably time to take another look at your illogical canard that since it's the "people's money," it can only be spent in certain ways. No. That's not correct.

 

You are confusing an economic system , monetary policy and a political platform. You are correct in how money is spent and raised by the government in our political system.

 

But that has nothing to do with how wealth is created . Government can not and does not create wealth . The government can print currency that artifically inflates current currency but it does not create wealth.

 

Where did I say I was against all taxes? Again another straw man's argument. I'm against innefficient use of funds whether it's in a household, business or government. I'm against waste and fraud, I'm also against a bloated government that continues to take on responsibility and costs on topics they were never intended to participate in.

 

Again keep talking and showing your lack of understanding.

You are confusing an economic system , monetary policy and a political platform. You are correct in how money is spent and raised by the government in our political system.

 

But that has nothing to do with how wealth is created . Government can not and does not create wealth . The government can print currency that artifically inflates current currency but it does not create wealth.

 

Where did I saw I was against all taxes? Again another straw man's argument. I'm against innefficient use of funds whether it's in a household, business or government. I'm against waste and fraud, I'm also against a bloated government that continues to take on responsibility and costs on topics they were never intended to participate in.

 

Again keep talking and showing your lack of understanding.

You keep screaming, month after month, that it's the "people's money, not the government's money." OK, but such an observation, on a practical level, tells me nothing. Are you saying that elected representatives cannot spend said "people's money" on social programs to benefit the poor? I'm not quite sure you've worked through all the details of your "it's the people's money" schtick. When you firm up your platform, send me a copy.

You keep screaming, month after month, that it's the "people's money, not the government's money." OK, but such an observation, on a practical level, tells me nothing. Are you saying that elected representatives cannot spend said "people's money" on social programs to benefit the poor? I'm not quite sure you've worked through all the details of your "it's the people's money" schtick. When you firm up your platform, send me a copy.

 

It's pretty simple if you've ever taken economics. The government has no money they can only raise money through taxes. They do not create wealth , they can only raise funds from taking from those who have created wealth.

 

This isn't some crazy concept , it's economic fact. What are you even debating ?

You keep screaming, month after month, that it's the "people's money, not the government's money." OK, but such an observation, on a practical level, tells me nothing. Are you saying that elected representatives cannot spend said "people's money" on social programs to benefit the poor? I'm not quite sure you've worked through all the details of your "it's the people's money" schtick. When you firm up your platform, send me a copy.

 

Your lack of knowledge of economics is sad. Just stop........you are getting owned.

You keep screaming, month after month, that it's the "people's money, not the government's money." OK, but such an observation, on a practical level, tells me nothing. Are you saying that elected representatives cannot spend said "people's money" on social programs to benefit the poor? I'm not quite sure you've worked through all the details of your "it's the people's money" schtick. When you firm up your platform, send me a copy.

 

Once the money is with the government it is no longer the 'peoples money'. It is the government's money. If the people support a cause they will fund it without government intervention.

 

The concept of government controlling money for the good of people is wrong. It is only valid if people are viewed as too stupid to make decisons.

 

The Tiny Dot - a classic.

 

The Tiny Dot explained.

 

Once the money is with the government it is no longer the 'peoples money'. It is the government's money. If the people support a cause they will fund it without government intervention.

 

The concept of government controlling money for the good of people is wrong. It is only valid if people are viewed as too stupid to make decisons.

The idea of government controlling money for the good of people is why we have roads, bridges, libraries and police departments. It's not a matter of stupid vs. smart. It's the manifestation of "common wealth," or the price we pay to live in a civilized society. In any event, I'm glad you agree with me that there is such a thing as the "government's money."

You keep screaming, month after month, that it's the "people's money, not the government's money." OK, but such an observation, on a practical level, tells me nothing. Are you saying that elected representatives cannot spend said "people's money" on social programs to benefit the poor? I'm not quite sure you've worked through all the details of your "it's the people's money" schtick. When you firm up your platform, send me a copy.

 

Someone forgot their meds today.:ohbrother:

The idea of government controlling money for the good of people is why we have roads, bridges, libraries and police departments. It's not a matter of stupid vs. smart. It's the manifestation of "common wealth," or the price we pay to live in a civilized society. In any event, I'm glad you agree with me that there is such a thing as the "government's money."

 

For a guy who wants to paint himself as enlightened you struggle with this topic. It's quite amusing.

The idea of government controlling money for the good of people is why we have roads, bridges, libraries and police departments. It's not a matter of stupid vs. smart. It's the manifestation of "common wealth," or the price we pay to live in a civilized society. In any event, I'm glad you agree with me that there is such a thing as the "government's money."

 

That view is not at all the founding view and has been popularized by the great communists of history.

 

Ever wonder why so many roads have the name 'pike' in them? A priviate person or group built it and got paid via the toll measured at the 'turn-pike'.

 

Ever wonder why other roads have the 'Mill' as part of them. That is because they were road to Bowmans Mill or Parkers Mill. Who built those roads - the mill owner.

 

So the commonwealth is nothing more than another name for forced wealth redistribution in the eyes of the UIs. Seems that fits.

 

When the State government levis taxes for local 'commonwealth' projects its usually not bad and is good intent and would match the narrative.

 

But when a centralized overarching government does so its usually for forced control of the States and forces States and the local people to capitulate to the Tiny Dot as above. Totalitarianism heads are not always a single guy in a made-up military uniform. It can be 565 or so men and women in nice suites who meet in a marble building.