The Political Party

[Minning Around]

---

Into Nation wrote:

lol

Phil should get in a time machine and go back to the 60's, when tax rates were higher and a tournament winner might pull in 25k.

---

I've followed golf a long, long time and what you say is true. When you look at the money celebreties make nowadays for doing basically nothing it becomes very difficult to feel any remorse for Mr. Mickelson. Taxes is one way we sacrifice for our country. The people who came before him and set up this great system of economic opportunity would be ashamed of Phil's greed.

Besides, he will always be known as a choker when it came time to beat Tiger.  And personally, I like Phil a lot more than Tiger.

[thankyou]

---

mauser wrote:

---

RogueGnome wrote:

mauser wrote:

Not sure how this nation ever got to the point in which the people believed they had the right to take away the earnings of another person. 

Income tax is what the government calls it.  Theft is what it'd be called if we did it on an individual basis.

If you don't have the right to legally do something yourself.....you certainly don't have the right to ask the government to do it for you.

uh, yeah.

It's called "the Constitution". (More than just a vessle for the 2nd amendment; right to bear arms )

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3:

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers...[1]
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.

The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax

---

Sorry....but you cannot have the government take something that doesn't belong to it anymore than you can take something that doesn't belong to you.

Amendment or not.....the people simply lack the right to ask others to do what would be illegal for them to do.

---

So, you can pick which amendments work for you?

[Minning Around]

---

thankyou wrote:

---

mauser wrote:

---

RogueGnome wrote:

mauser wrote:

Not sure how this nation ever got to the point in which the people believed they had the right to take away the earnings of another person. 

Income tax is what the government calls it.  Theft is what it'd be called if we did it on an individual basis.

If you don't have the right to legally do something yourself.....you certainly don't have the right to ask the government to do it for you.

uh, yeah.

It's called "the Constitution". (More than just a vessle for the 2nd amendment; right to bear arms )

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3:

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers...[1]
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.

The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax

---

Sorry....but you cannot have the government take something that doesn't belong to it anymore than you can take something that doesn't belong to you.

Amendment or not.....the people simply lack the right to ask others to do what would be illegal for them to do.

---

So, you can pick which amendments work for you?

---

Bingo. That's how the conservative mind works.

[mdwagner73]

---

mauser wrote:
Mdwagner: there was more revenue coming in than could be spent.

Kinda makes you wonder why they needed income tax.

---

First they needed it to pay for war costs.  Then they needed it to find a way to even out the tax burden which was being shouldered disproportionately by the less affluent.  Because tariffs and sales taxes are regressive, as I already alluded to. Can you present any logical argument for shifting the burden back to the less affluent?

[splatbass]

---

mauser wrote:


So the concensus is that if you don't like the government infringong upon you rights and taking your property, move to Somalia.

---

There is no right not to be taxed on income.

[mauser]

---

thankyou wrote:

---

So, you can pick which amendments work for you?

---

If you can amend the Constitution for the purposes of confiscating the personal property of the people without their consent, then I suppose there's no limit to what government can do.

Which is kinda odd....because the entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit what the government could do and protect the rights of the people.  It's now been turned on its head and provides for unlimited government and abuses the rights of the people.

[mauser]

---

splatbass wrote:

---

There is no right not to be taxed on income.

---

To whom does the income belong?  The person who earns it, or those who didn't?

Clearly, it belongs to the person who earned it, and taking it from them without their consent is theft.

Last time I checked....theft is a crime.

[Another Brick]

Taxation is not theft, no matter what is said in the alternate universe.

[mauser]

---

Another Brick wrote:
Taxation is not theft, no matter what is said in the alternate universe.

---

Certain forms of taxation isn't theft.

Income tax is most certainly theft.

[Another Brick]

But neither party has tried to stop it. Both parties eagerly spend the money raised from it. Just the way things are.

[mauser]

Another Brick: Neither party will ever try to stop it. They're both beholding to the bankers being made wealthy from our tax dollars, not to mention other corporations such as defense contractors.

People blindly accept being raped by the government and Federal Reserve system, and think it's patriotic.

Bunch of sheep.

[RogueGnome]

originally posted by: yanktar
Accepting Fox as legitimate news was as absurd as accepting Professional Wrestling as a legitimate sport.

---

Fans of Professional Wrestling, which has been around since the 1950s, will be deeply offended by this statement.

[Another Brick]

Good thing you recognize the rich want as much free stuff from the government as do the poor. If only more people did.

[mauser]

Another Brick: they're also more likely to get it.

[moonlightin]

---

mauser wrote:

---

splatbass wrote:

Freeloader. Pay your share, stop freeloading off the rest of us. What difference dioes it make if you are taxed on income or some other way? You still need to pay your share. You are not gettting off from your duty to society not to freeload.

---

I'd be happy to pay just as the people paid before the income tax.

If there wasn't a difference.....then why does it exist?

You might want to think about that.

---

You mean, when there was only five people in the nation?

[moonlightin]

---

mauser wrote:
And I'm still looking for a logical explanation of how people we delegate tasks to could possibly have more and different rights than the people who did the delegating. If you believe there should be two sets of rules, one for government and one for the people....then you believe in and support tyranny.

You can talk about amendments and democracy all you want.....but you can't simply vote away the rights of other people, simply because they stand between you and what you want the government to do.

---

I don't think you'll find any single person here who things govco folks should have more and better privileges then your avg joe. You have two separate thoughts going on here.

[PFB]

I see Mickelson shilling pain pills every night on TV, I bet he doesn't appreciate how much of that company's business has come through medicare and other government subsidies to Big Pharma, and therefore to the paycheck he is getting.

Who sponsors the PGA tour?- United Airlines, bailed out by the taxpayer. Anheuser Busch - benefit from the taxpayer spending on War on Drugs. General Electric - huge benefiiary of taxpayer spending on thier military products. Etc., etc.

The taxpayers helped make Mikelson all that money, but being a selfish rich asshole, he can't figure it out.

[Graeca]

---

mauser wrote:

---

RupertB wrote:

Kudos to Tony Nitti.  I had to double-check that this wasn't a C/P from the Onion.

"To be honest, it’s hard to blame Mickelson – who has compiled a net worth approaching $180 million by repeatedly striking a tiny white ball until it falls into a hole — for putting all options on the table, which according to some, include the possibility of prematurely shutting down his career to avoid his rising tax burden. Let’s take a look at what Mickelson is up against in 2013:

For starters, courtesy of President Obama’s re-election and the subsequent fiscal cliff negotiations, Mickelson will experience an increase in his top tax rate on ordinary income from 35% to 39.6%, and an increase in his top rate on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends from 15% to 20%. Clearly, when faced with tax hikes of that magnitude, it stops making economic sense for Mickelson to continue to swing a metal stick up to 70 times a day in exchange for the $48 million he earns on an annual basis.

But it gets worse. Thanks to the expiration of the temporary 2% reduction in the payroll tax rate on the first $113,700 of self-employment income, Mickelson will have to fork over an extra $2,274 in tax during 2013, an additional burden that makes it hard to justify briskly walking as many as five miles per day, four days a week. In long pants, nonetheless.

And then there’s the impact of Obamacare. When you consider that from now on, Mickelson will be liable for an additional 0.9% tax on his self-employment income and 3.8% tax on his net investment income after each exceeds $250,000, what’s left over from the multi-million dollar endorsement deal requiring him to sport a Rolex watch while playing private courses in exotic locales hardly seems worth it.

If you think perhaps Mickelson is being a bit of a baby for threating to end a career that’s earned him a spot on this list of 10 wealthiest athletes on the planet because of some tax increases, understand that he’s getting hit on the state level, too. In November, California passed Proposition 30, which increases the top income tax rate on resident millionaires to 13.3%, a drain on Mickelson’s take-home pay that may force him to sell his 9,500 square foot mansion and flee his home state in search of more friendly pastures."

Don't cry for Poor Phil.  Think of the caddies.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2013/01/21/golfer-phil-mickelson-may-call-it-quits-due-to-c...

---

Not sure how this nation ever got to the point in which the people believed they had the right to take away the earnings of another person. 

Income tax is what the government calls it.  Theft is what it'd be called if we did it on an individual basis.

If you don't have the right to legally do something yourself.....you certainly don't have the right to ask the government to do it for you.

---

Why do you feel that he shouldn't pay his fair share? Do you think he could've amassed such wealth as a golfer in many other contries?

[splatbass]

---

PFB wrote:

I see Mickelson shilling pain pills every night on TV,

---

Those aren't pain pills. Educate yourself. He has a form of arthritis similar to the rheumatoid arthritis that I have. What he is "shilling" is a shot that slows his immune system so it stops attacking his joints. I take the same thing. These immune system diseases are very serious, and can destroy your ability to perform even the simplest tasks if you don't get treatment. He couldn't play golf because of it. There have been times I couldn't play music, and there are times I can't do aspects of my job that involve lifting.

It is a serious thing, the drug he is advertizing CHANGES PEOPLE'S LIVES. It isn't to kill the pain, it is to stop progression of the disease. That does have the effect of easing pain due to reduction of the swelling that causes the pain, but it isn't the purpose of the drug. Before these drugs were available he would have a life of progressive disability until his fingers were crooked and he couldn't stand up straight or walk to look forward to.

[Graeca]

---

mauser wrote:

---

splatbass wrote:

Freeloader. Pay your share, stop freeloading off the rest of us. What difference dioes it make if you are taxed on income or some other way? You still need to pay your share. You are not gettting off from your duty to society not to freeload.

---

I'd be happy to pay just as the people paid before the income tax.

If there wasn't a difference.....then why does it exist?

You might want to think about that.

---

Are you willing to give up all the things you're now enjoying that weren't available back then? Seriously doubt it!