Re: "Oh Sunni! Oh, Shiite! Let's fight the Jews."

James_W wrote:
Kip Williams wrote:

James_W wrote:

Kip Williams wrote:

James_W wrote:

Kip Williams wrote:

James_W wrote:

Kip Williams wrote:

James_W wrote:

mike weber wrote:

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 05:17:50 GMT, David Harmon <source@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:16:34 -0000 in rec.arts.sf.fandom,
dicconf@xxxxxxxxx (Richard Eney) wrote,

It's not an implication, Keith. You said that government employees make more than taxpayers do. This clearly asserts that "government employees" and "taxpayers" are two different subsets of the population.


Well, they are. Government employees are net tax recipients.

Doesn't matter, they still *pay* taxes, unlike Exxon and other big
corporations, which merely collect them.

Government workers only appear to pay taxes as the result of an accounting fiction. If Some bureaucrat receives a salary of $100,000 and pays $30,000 in taxes, this is not in any practical sense different from receiving $70,000 and not paying taxes.


And if he receives a salary of $100,000.00 and pays $99,999.99 in taxes, it's just like he receives a penny and doesn't pay taxes on it. Darn those bureaucrats!


What was the point of that flippant remark?


To demonstrate, by reductio ad absurdam, that yours had none. If I receive a salary of $30k and pay $10k in taxes, it's like getting $20k tax free. Whaa?

Ok.

Is this supposed to show that bureaucrats *do* face an effective tax burden? A reductio ad absurdum would show that my argument or some part of it logically entails a false statement. What false statement does my argument entail?


The ridiculous notion that they have no tax burden, for one. They earn the money they receive and pay taxes on it like everybody else. To subtract out the taxes and pretend that whatever remains is some sort of no-tax bountry is rather absurd. I wonder why that's so hard for you to see.

You have to show that my argument entails something false. Claiming that the conclusion is ridiculous is a little different. I'm not pretending anything. If a person receives X + Y from the public treasury and pays in Y, there is no practical difference between this and just receiving X. Are you claiming that this is false?

I'm stating that it is absurd to think this proves anything. Because you can subtract taxes from earnings and come up with a figure, this means what? Why is it sinister than their earnings are larger than their taxes?

Sine you are not claiming that my conclusion is false, I take it that we agree. If you want to call an algebraic result absurd, I don't see that as important enough to argue about.

Two and two equal four, therefore you're irrelevant. Why does it matter that they, like we, receive payment for services rendered, and have money left over after taxes? Why does it matter? What is the significance of your tirade against them receiving money for what they do? What is the big deal? The result isn't absurd, but your application of it is totally devoid of any reason. Try and demonstrate some relevance, for once.

Seems to me all you had was a substance-free slam at "bureaucrats" for getting their money from a slightly different trough than you get yours.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

What else could it be? Their money comes from the public treasury, therefore, they are -- what? -- welfare queens? What was the purpose of your remark, if not to push an imaginary Us vs Them dichotomy?

To push a real us vs. them dichotomy.

Well, there we have it. "They" are not like "us." Why not, precisely?

Because they are net tax receiver and we are net tax payers. If you find this difference unimportant, that's a matter of biographical significance and not something I see the need to convince you to change your mind on.

They receive money from the general fund, which was at one time tax money. Once it goes to the government, it is no longer "tax money" any more than a nickel is no longer yours once it goes into a vending machine and a piece of gum comes out. Can you follow the travels of a dollar from your kind, sensible pocket to the evil, sinister pocket of one of these "net tax receivers" you are so exercised over?

Because they work for the government? Please, do explain.

That their employer is a government is not so important. If any organization takes 10 from me, pays 5 to its members and then has the members pay 2 back to the organization for later use, the consequence is the same whether that organization is a government or not.

In other words, you have nothing. Sitting there using the Internet, breathing somewhat clean air, protected by the police and armed forces, driving on roads, and you're upset because somebody, somewhere is getting paid by the same government that expects you to be treated like just about everybody else who pays taxes, including those government employees whose income is so upsetting to you.

Go outside and enjoy the fresh air and sunshine.

Kip W

Kip W
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: unions
    ... No more than I have a personal choice not to pay taxes. ... the government can't force you to murder. ... army of accountants to produce a 24,000 page tax return. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)
  • Re: We Needed A Big Gas Tax Like We Need a Scathing Case of Herpes
    ... good money, but not too high to cause investment in alternatives. ... don't trust the government to "redistribute" anything, ... Unfortunately in many states these taxes go directly into the states general funds and never do get spent on improving the roads if the roads in my area are any indicator. ... Just apply the state's sales tax rate. ...
    (rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang)
  • Re: OT: oil profits
    ... I was focusing on government as % of GDP. ... higher taxes to fund even more programs and with them, ... The USSR did have a modest tax to try to take account ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox)
  • Tax DEADLINE tomorrow HAVE YOU PAID YOURS??
    ... I haven't paid any taxes since the early 80s. ... Why Pay Taxes? ... You can't decide how government spends your money, ... tax, legal, and regulatory structure. ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: Fairtax: how does this math work out?
    ... As> I understand it, they want to get rid of the income tax altogether, and> raise the sales tax on items to 23%. ... They argue that low income, medium income, and high> income families will all benefit from lower taxation, while the> government will be able to increase the revenue it brings in from> taxation. ... If he doesn't pay that income tax, but instead goes broke by spending every single penny of that 30 million in the economy, he would still end up contributing 5.3 million dollars less to the government than he would under the income tax system. ... The answer is that it would appear that the wealthy would pay less than they do now in taxes. ...
    (misc.taxes)
Loading