image stats
date added
previous votes
log in


indent register
indent recover


1 star2 stars3 stars4 stars5 stars

Comments for: taxes..
DarkKlown Report This Comment
Date: September 02, 2008 11:10PM

tax the rich not the poor.. stop people from trying to strive and allow people to be happy with what they have... control the masses by making them sit still..
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: September 03, 2008 12:17AM

Tax is always a tough call - do you tax the rich because they can afford it more, or do you give the rich a tax break as they are more likely to invest any extra money that have available thereby stimulating the economy?
Mint Report This Comment
Date: September 03, 2008 01:48AM

all said and good but where else are we going to get money from.

I think they forgetting their roles. Republicans are supposed to take our money and democrats are supposed to be spending it. Now it seems like everyone wants to give give give while we fall trillions of dollars in the hole. Trade surplus in the black? Hey thats free money to spend. Reminds me of when people get their tax refunds each year. Instead of paying off their damn debt, they treat it like free money and go buy a plasma TV. Sigh.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2008 01:51AM by Mint.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: September 03, 2008 06:52AM

How about a flat tax for everyone over the national poverty level with no deductions or tax shelters, no way to get out of paying it?
madmex2000 Report This Comment
Date: September 03, 2008 09:15AM

wow,never heard that idea before. how about something realistic
zxz555 Report This Comment
Date: September 03, 2008 09:25AM

i think jgoins means a percentage tax, not a flat rate of $50. The problem is, the rich always get out of it. It's also a diversionary tactic for politicians to play the taxes up or down game in elections. How about just going for a better world instead of maintaining the status quo and quibbling over a cent here and a penny there? Politics = bullshit.
ORLANDO399 Report This Comment
Date: September 03, 2008 10:51AM

If the demo-fags have their way,they will tax heavier on the rich and give back to the poor.Great idea huh?Except for the fact that those people are seriously taking advantage of the system,doing drugs,selling their foodstamps fer alcohol,and NONworking,while their own kids are still in the same clothes that they were in two months ago!While thats happening the rich are'nt donating or giving to any charitys anymore,furthermore crippling our youth and our economy!Great idea demo-fags!
zxz555 Report This Comment
Date: September 03, 2008 12:44PM

orlando, sounds like you want to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. And those wonderful charity donations by the darling rich you clearly aspire to be like are um ... tax evasion strategies. Charitable donations are tax deductible in the US, and you get to be a patron and very often a place on the board of directors is reserved for you or your best friend from school. So yeah, keep giving the already rich the breaks while oppressing the poor and make sure that the people with the power keep that power, may it never come your way or mine.

Vote with your brain and forget what it says on the MacDonalds carton in front of you, go to the polling station and write none of the above on the ballot paper.
Monster1 Report This Comment
Date: September 03, 2008 01:18PM

I think what Lando means is STOP giving away our tax money to some poor lazy SOB and tell them to WORK!

ORLANDO399 Report This Comment
Date: September 03, 2008 04:08PM

I agree with ya z on the rich,but taxing them to high heaven isnt going to make anything better.The poor comes out better then you think,the coke head mama down the street with them ten kids of hers collects about six to seven thousand dollars a year off us.The demo-fags focus their complete attention on welfare and simply dont give a shit about the nations security.That really makes me feel great knowing n.korea is building nuclear weapons as we speak and were over here focused on giving the slums of society more money.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2008 04:13PM by ORLANDO399.
zxz555 Report This Comment
Date: September 03, 2008 04:30PM

Bizarrely, people on welfare, and ( so I read in the newspapers) blacks (sorry, African-Americans - they are blacks in Britain) are least likely to vote in US elections, so why politicians pander to that section of society is anyone's guess. Maybe it's because they bitch loudest? Of course the other section of society with the most influence on elections are the minority rich, they have few votes yet, strangely, an awful lot of power. I really think the best vote nowadays is to write "none of the above", get your vote counted without choosing any of those awful people o the ballot paper.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: September 04, 2008 06:25AM

The only way "none of the above" would do any good would be for everyone to do it, but that can't possibly happen. If you put "none of the above" on your ballot your vote will just be lost and one of those running will still win and you will not help in choosing them. If even 100 people voted there would be a winner. Change cannot be made by not voting. You would do better to cast your vote for Ralph Nader then "none of the above".
zxz555 Report This Comment
Date: September 04, 2008 10:31AM

I don't think that is the case, the spoiled ballots get counted in most countries, especially in countries like (I think) Switzerland where it is illegal not to vote. So it will have an effect, and anyway, you vote for what you, the individual want, not what the majority will also do (ie one of two useless private entrepreneurs).

Most countries also require a minimum %age of the populace to turn out, below that level, often around 45%, there has to be a re-election, and if no candidate receives a majority they do not win. It stands to reason therefore that if 50% of the people eligible to vote do so (and that is a reasonable number for elections in the west) and the majority votes are "none of the above" then none of the candidates can be elected. Parties are forced to find new candidates.

It is entirely realistic that as voters we are in a position to advocate a quiet revolution by means of turning out at the polling stations and voting "no confidence" in the present system by means of "none of the above". This, with Bush remaining in office until a solution is met is my preferred outcome.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: September 04, 2008 11:58AM

voters don't elect the president, the electoral college does. thumbs up
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: September 06, 2008 06:47AM

True FD and if 25% of the votes are for the candidates and not none of the above then the electorial college will determine a winner. I think it would happen even with 1% of the voters casting a legitimate vote.
zxz555 Report This Comment
Date: September 06, 2008 04:48PM

How did the US come up with a strange system,a system also that seems overly complicated (deliberately?) Compared to other systems throughout the world it appears to go very much against the people, all the while claiming to be for them.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: September 07, 2008 07:29AM

Our system is not perfect by any mens but then again neither is any other.