5 ms·

"[when that tax bill comes your thought should be]... a recognition that in paying your taxes you are helping to support millions of Americans that are not as f

"[when that tax bill comes your thought should be]... a recognition that in paying your taxes you are helping to support millions of Americans that are not as fortunate as you." Right, so I bust my ass in school, non-paid internships, contracting as much as possible, and 50 hour work weeks on my startup... and the reason I'm making money is b/c I'm more "fortunate" than the slob who is still playing video games in college after 6 years and the idiot who chooses to have kids he can't afford? OK, got it... making wise choices makes you "fortunate"... and it's "unfortunate" when idiots who make poor decisions just don't make quite enough money to afford cigarettes, bling for his car, and health insurance. Another serious flaw in this article, besides his inept philosophy: money stolen from us by the government is not "helping to support millions of americans"... it's being completely wasted by GovCo, for the most part, or at minimum used very inefficiently.

forinti 17y ago
It always amazes me how americans have the smallest social safety net of the developed world and are always blaming the unfortunate for eating up their taxes. You also work more hours than workers in other developed nations and yet still can't stop going on and on about lazy people.
- 321abc 17y ago
  Not to mention the daily stories of Wall St hustlers stealing billions, trillions of taxpayer dollars being given away as welfare to corporations (which promptly pay out billions in bonuses) and trillions pissed away on murdering tens of thousands of people in other countries, but people are all up in arms when some single mother gets a $100 in food stamps, or a Mexican risks death in the desert to come mow your lawn. Or god forbid that health care suddenly becomes affordable. That would be a true outrage! There's really very little sense of proportion in this country.
  - solutionyogi 17y ago
    The problem here is of the government. Government decided to intervene and give those billions to the corporations. If government and bureaucrats didn't have the power to give away taxpayer's money, we won't have this problem. And that's why we libertarians talk about 'limited government.' Remember, 'Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.'
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
    - 321abc 17y ago
      That might be a half-respectable position, if libertarians were against all concentrations of power. But they're not. They're more than happy to give corporations and individuals all the power their money can buy them. Also, libertarians have plenty of scorn for what the government does wrong, but little respect for what it does right. The EPA, before the anti-EPA right wing nuts of the bush administration took it over, was doing good work, like trying to keep mercury out of our water. Of course, under the "pro business" bush administration, they've undermined such protections and declared that mercury and other toxins in our water aren't so bad after all and raised their acceptable limits in water (which is just a small sample of the outrageous "pro business" bullshit the bush administration was guilty of). I happen to enjoy the National Parks in the US, as I think many Americans do; and I, for one, am glad that they're in public hands instead of the hands of the corporations. Yet Bush appointed people to head the National Park service who had explicitly expressed their opposition to even the existence of National Parks. And they've proceeded to sell off public lands and undermine the protections of the National Parks by granting more permissive logging rights to corporations and by watering down environmental regulations. Now on to the FDA, which does a pretty good job of protecting the quality of the food and drugs it regulates (though in my opinion they are not nearly strict enough, because in many cases they in bed with the corporations and are underfunded, so consequently their regulation and enforcement is not nearly strong enough). All the "pro-business", anti-environment, and anti-public-property abuses of the Bush administration would be increased a hundred fold if the libertarian vision ever came to pass. The libertarians would get rid of the EPA, the FDA, and sell of the National Parks. The corps would be free to pollute our air and water, kill off all endangered species, and the corps would be free to "self-regulate" the food and drugs they produce (meaning a free-for-all for a quick buck at the expense of public health). And the above doesn't even begin to address the havoc libertarians would wreck on our education system (turning it in to even more of education for the wealthy than it already is), and destroy the few vestiges of a social safety net that America has managed to save despite many decades of assault from the "small government" crowd. Basically, what libertarianism really amounts to is the attitude that there should be even more concentration of power in the hands of the wealthy, and the poor can go fuck themselves. In my youth I was drawn to libertarianism (and I still agree with a few of their positions, such as their opposition to the War on Drugs), but as I've learned more about politics and history I see that the vast majority of those who will benefit from libertarianism are the wealthy, which is one reason (another is his racism) why Ron Paul could sneak in as a Republican candidate, where he wouldn't have stood a chance as a Democrat.
scott_s 17y ago
Without the infrastructure around you, you would not have the opportunity to succeed. Much of this infrastructure is public - paid for and run by the government. Taxes are not the government stealing your income from you. It's the government pooling resources so the society we live in can continue to function. There's more to success than making wise choices. It's also have the ability to even have that choice because of your surrounding environment.
- solutionyogi 17y ago
  Wow, HN folks sure have a 'socialist' slant. Anyway, do you think you are getting your money's worth when you give away 30% of your income in taxes? Do you know how much of the tax money is spent of infrastructure? Look at this chart of US budget spending. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY... 65% of taxpayer's money went to defense/social security/medicare-medicaid. Think about it for a moment. 65% of the money spent had nothing to do with infrastructure. Also, do you think that government is spending all the taxpayer's money carefully OR you think that government wastes tremendous waste amount of money? There are 3 ways to spend money: 1. Your own money on yourself. [You are very careful about getting your money's worth and you do spend generously] 2. Your own money on someone else. [You are very careful about getting your money's worth but you spend as little as you can] 3. Someone else's money on someone else. [Let's burn some money to heat up the place!] Government falls in 3rd category and it's no surprise that there is tremendous waste. That's why libertarians are advocating 'limited government', 'minimal taxes' so that people (you and me) can keep their hard earned money for themselves and spend as they see fit.
  - scott_s 17y ago
    I actually think people here tend to run more libertarian than socialist. I wish we spent less on the defense, but the amount spent on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid sits fine with me. I consider that social infrastructure. When large portions of society go without, all of society suffers. We see ourselves as fitting into society in different ways. You feel that the government is taking your money in the form of taxes. I feel that I'm paying for the privilege of living in a society that affords me the opportunity to earn money.
decode 17y ago
"Right, so I bust my ass in school, non-paid internships, contracting as much as possible, and 50 hour work weeks on my startup... and the reason I'm making money is b/c I'm more "fortunate" than the slob who is still playing video games in college after 6 years and the idiot who chooses to have kids he can't afford?" I don't know you, but I consider myself fortunate to be making more money than most because I was given, through no merit of my own, the ability and environment in which I could become educated and work towards goals that ended in lucrative work. As the child of educated, middle-class, white-collar people in a modern industrialized country, I have had thousands of opportunities denied most others in the world. If any of those things changed, for example if I happened to be born 300 years ago or if my community never taught me the importance of education and hard work or if I was born in a place where subsistence-level living is the norm, I would be in a completely different boat. If you have the ability to make wise choices that effect change in your life, then yes, you are fortunate. On a side note, this sort of disdain for the poor is disturbing to me. Do people really think poor people choose to be so? Nobody wants to be poor.
- miked 17y ago
  Do people really think poor people choose to be so? Nobody wants to be poor. That no one wants to be poor is obvious enough, but it's hardly the same as whether or not they choose to be. The poorest person I know has an IQ of 186 and a PhD in chemistry. He chooses to live on government disability and not work, even though he's quite capable of doing so. But he he shares a quality I've noticed in all of the poor people I know personally: a belief the world owes him a living. Everything in his screwed-up life is someone else's fault, never his, no matter how much damage he inflicts on others. That isn't all poor people, but it's a lot of them.
mikeryan 17y ago
Wow that's cold. It's a bit ugly that you can loop everyone that can't afford healthcare, mental health issues or drug addiction into a single bucket and dispose of them. Those who can afford to spend 6 years in college playing video games, rarely are the ones who are doing it on the gov't dime. Its the kids that grow up in crappy underprivileged neighborhoods with poor school systems and no guidance are the ones that need help. But hey its their parents fault right? You sir, compassion less, and cold spirited and are the one I can do without.
- jonallanharper 17y ago
  And, you sir, live in a false reality. I bet you'd love to tell us how socialism would work if we "just gave it a chance." Let me guess... it "hasn't been implemented properly" yet right?
  - scott_s 17y ago
    Socialism isn't a scalar. We have government run/funded military, police, fire fighters, grade schools, universities, postal service, space program, welfare, pensions in the form of Social Security and health care for the poor and elderly through Medicaid and Medicare. Many European countries are more on the socialist side of the spectrum than we are.
  - mikeryan 17y ago
    Wow which false reality is that? I'm well aware of how much I pay in taxes, its significant and getting worse since I started my own business this year. But I believe that my taxes fill a need society and in fact even have a pragmatic slant (one which Cuban raised) in the Keynsian model more taxes = more spending by gov't and the only real way to stimulate economy. Win/Win I help people and make more money with a better economy.
    - solutionyogi 17y ago
      Show me one example where government is able to stimulate economy. First, you will have to clarify what 'stimulating an economy' means. Once you have specified what it means, you will have to explain how each dollar spent has somehow stimulated the economy. I think you fail to comprehend how complicated modern day economy is. Have you heard of 'I, Pencil' story? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6vjrzUplWU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6vjrzUplWU The gist is that no single person knows how to make a pencil. Because of co-ordinated efforts of thousands of people, working for their own goals, makes it possible to manufacture pencil and deliver it at your local store where you can buy it for dollar a piece. Do you really think that few hundred bureaucrats in DC can decide how billions of dollars should be spent so that economy is stimulated?

forinti 17y ago

It always amazes me how americans have the smallest social safety net of the developed world and are always blaming the unfortunate for eating up their taxes. You also work more hours than workers in other developed nations and yet still can't stop going on and on about lazy people.

321abc 17y ago
Not to mention the daily stories of Wall St hustlers stealing billions, trillions of taxpayer dollars being given away as welfare to corporations (which promptly pay out billions in bonuses) and trillions pissed away on murdering tens of thousands of people in other countries, but people are all up in arms when some single mother gets a $100 in food stamps, or a Mexican risks death in the desert to come mow your lawn. Or god forbid that health care suddenly becomes affordable. That would be a true outrage! There's really very little sense of proportion in this country.
- solutionyogi 17y ago
  The problem here is of the government. Government decided to intervene and give those billions to the corporations. If government and bureaucrats didn't have the power to give away taxpayer's money, we won't have this problem. And that's why we libertarians talk about 'limited government.' Remember, 'Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.'
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - 321abc 17y ago
    That might be a half-respectable position, if libertarians were against all concentrations of power. But they're not. They're more than happy to give corporations and individuals all the power their money can buy them. Also, libertarians have plenty of scorn for what the government does wrong, but little respect for what it does right. The EPA, before the anti-EPA right wing nuts of the bush administration took it over, was doing good work, like trying to keep mercury out of our water. Of course, under the "pro business" bush administration, they've undermined such protections and declared that mercury and other toxins in our water aren't so bad after all and raised their acceptable limits in water (which is just a small sample of the outrageous "pro business" bullshit the bush administration was guilty of). I happen to enjoy the National Parks in the US, as I think many Americans do; and I, for one, am glad that they're in public hands instead of the hands of the corporations. Yet Bush appointed people to head the National Park service who had explicitly expressed their opposition to even the existence of National Parks. And they've proceeded to sell off public lands and undermine the protections of the National Parks by granting more permissive logging rights to corporations and by watering down environmental regulations. Now on to the FDA, which does a pretty good job of protecting the quality of the food and drugs it regulates (though in my opinion they are not nearly strict enough, because in many cases they in bed with the corporations and are underfunded, so consequently their regulation and enforcement is not nearly strong enough). All the "pro-business", anti-environment, and anti-public-property abuses of the Bush administration would be increased a hundred fold if the libertarian vision ever came to pass. The libertarians would get rid of the EPA, the FDA, and sell of the National Parks. The corps would be free to pollute our air and water, kill off all endangered species, and the corps would be free to "self-regulate" the food and drugs they produce (meaning a free-for-all for a quick buck at the expense of public health). And the above doesn't even begin to address the havoc libertarians would wreck on our education system (turning it in to even more of education for the wealthy than it already is), and destroy the few vestiges of a social safety net that America has managed to save despite many decades of assault from the "small government" crowd. Basically, what libertarianism really amounts to is the attitude that there should be even more concentration of power in the hands of the wealthy, and the poor can go fuck themselves. In my youth I was drawn to libertarianism (and I still agree with a few of their positions, such as their opposition to the War on Drugs), but as I've learned more about politics and history I see that the vast majority of those who will benefit from libertarianism are the wealthy, which is one reason (another is his racism) why Ron Paul could sneak in as a Republican candidate, where he wouldn't have stood a chance as a Democrat.

scott_s 17y ago

Without the infrastructure around you, you would not have the opportunity to succeed. Much of this infrastructure is public - paid for and run by the government. Taxes are not the government stealing your income from you. It's the government pooling resources so the society we live in can continue to function. There's more to success than making wise choices. It's also have the ability to even have that choice because of your surrounding environment.

solutionyogi 17y ago
Wow, HN folks sure have a 'socialist' slant. Anyway, do you think you are getting your money's worth when you give away 30% of your income in taxes? Do you know how much of the tax money is spent of infrastructure? Look at this chart of US budget spending. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY... 65% of taxpayer's money went to defense/social security/medicare-medicaid. Think about it for a moment. 65% of the money spent had nothing to do with infrastructure. Also, do you think that government is spending all the taxpayer's money carefully OR you think that government wastes tremendous waste amount of money? There are 3 ways to spend money: 1. Your own money on yourself. [You are very careful about getting your money's worth and you do spend generously] 2. Your own money on someone else. [You are very careful about getting your money's worth but you spend as little as you can] 3. Someone else's money on someone else. [Let's burn some money to heat up the place!] Government falls in 3rd category and it's no surprise that there is tremendous waste. That's why libertarians are advocating 'limited government', 'minimal taxes' so that people (you and me) can keep their hard earned money for themselves and spend as they see fit.
- scott_s 17y ago
  I actually think people here tend to run more libertarian than socialist. I wish we spent less on the defense, but the amount spent on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid sits fine with me. I consider that social infrastructure. When large portions of society go without, all of society suffers. We see ourselves as fitting into society in different ways. You feel that the government is taking your money in the form of taxes. I feel that I'm paying for the privilege of living in a society that affords me the opportunity to earn money.

decode 17y ago

"Right, so I bust my ass in school, non-paid internships, contracting as much as possible, and 50 hour work weeks on my startup... and the reason I'm making money is b/c I'm more "fortunate" than the slob who is still playing video games in college after 6 years and the idiot who chooses to have kids he can't afford?" I don't know you, but I consider myself fortunate to be making more money than most because I was given, through no merit of my own, the ability and environment in which I could become educated and work towards goals that ended in lucrative work. As the child of educated, middle-class, white-collar people in a modern industrialized country, I have had thousands of opportunities denied most others in the world. If any of those things changed, for example if I happened to be born 300 years ago or if my community never taught me the importance of education and hard work or if I was born in a place where subsistence-level living is the norm, I would be in a completely different boat. If you have the ability to make wise choices that effect change in your life, then yes, you are fortunate. On a side note, this sort of disdain for the poor is disturbing to me. Do people really think poor people choose to be so? Nobody wants to be poor.

miked 17y ago
Do people really think poor people choose to be so? Nobody wants to be poor. That no one wants to be poor is obvious enough, but it's hardly the same as whether or not they choose to be. The poorest person I know has an IQ of 186 and a PhD in chemistry. He chooses to live on government disability and not work, even though he's quite capable of doing so. But he he shares a quality I've noticed in all of the poor people I know personally: a belief the world owes him a living. Everything in his screwed-up life is someone else's fault, never his, no matter how much damage he inflicts on others. That isn't all poor people, but it's a lot of them.

mikeryan 17y ago

Wow that's cold. It's a bit ugly that you can loop everyone that can't afford healthcare, mental health issues or drug addiction into a single bucket and dispose of them. Those who can afford to spend 6 years in college playing video games, rarely are the ones who are doing it on the gov't dime. Its the kids that grow up in crappy underprivileged neighborhoods with poor school systems and no guidance are the ones that need help. But hey its their parents fault right? You sir, compassion less, and cold spirited and are the one I can do without.

jonallanharper 17y ago
And, you sir, live in a false reality. I bet you'd love to tell us how socialism would work if we "just gave it a chance." Let me guess... it "hasn't been implemented properly" yet right?
- scott_s 17y ago
  Socialism isn't a scalar. We have government run/funded military, police, fire fighters, grade schools, universities, postal service, space program, welfare, pensions in the form of Social Security and health care for the poor and elderly through Medicaid and Medicare. Many European countries are more on the socialist side of the spectrum than we are.
- mikeryan 17y ago
  Wow which false reality is that? I'm well aware of how much I pay in taxes, its significant and getting worse since I started my own business this year. But I believe that my taxes fill a need society and in fact even have a pragmatic slant (one which Cuban raised) in the Keynsian model more taxes = more spending by gov't and the only real way to stimulate economy. Win/Win I help people and make more money with a better economy.
  - solutionyogi 17y ago
    Show me one example where government is able to stimulate economy. First, you will have to clarify what 'stimulating an economy' means. Once you have specified what it means, you will have to explain how each dollar spent has somehow stimulated the economy. I think you fail to comprehend how complicated modern day economy is. Have you heard of 'I, Pencil' story? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6vjrzUplWU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6vjrzUplWU The gist is that no single person knows how to make a pencil. Because of co-ordinated efforts of thousands of people, working for their own goals, makes it possible to manufacture pencil and deliver it at your local store where you can buy it for dollar a piece. Do you really think that few hundred bureaucrats in DC can decide how billions of dollars should be spent so that economy is stimulated?