Can Red secede from Blue? Please?!

[Sheikh_yer_Bu'Tay]

Bluegill, please tell us more about yourself. What do you do for a living?

[Rodebaugh]

I'll read this thread in the morning. Right now WV goes to the libs. Good luck with that solar junk

[frugalcanuck]

This explanes why my conservative friends "know" im a liberal and my liberal friends "know" a conservative...
Myabe im just an a$$hole

[barrytrot]

Bluegill, that is probably the strangest opinion I've read in a while.

One thing you said was, "you are paying less than someone else" Well how about Mitt Romney who paid 7 figures in income taxes? He paid MORE than nearly everyone. Yet in your opinion because he took TONS of tax break-type-things he is on the dole.

And take, say someone doing well earning 100k and they pay 25k instead of 30k because they have a mortgage. Somehow by PAYING 25k they should be calling up the government and saying, "thanks for the cash". They PAID.

Wow, strange way to think about it.

I have now officially heard everything

[Engineer]

The difference in opinion between Bluegil and Barry/Thogey is a great example of why we need a flat tax. As long as the PTB can keep us fighting amongst ourselves, we won't rise up to oppose them.

[barrytrot]

Bluegill,

Wouldn't anyone paying above the average be *by definition of paying more than others* NOT be on the dole?

[Sheikh_yer_Bu'Tay]

Does anyone else notice the level of bitterness in the dialog? I was halfway joking around about session, but I am beginning to believe it would be a healthier thing to do than what we have now.

I believe what is really needed is a strengthening of the 10th amendment. Right now the centralized government has too much power. It is a winner-take-all, it-sucks-to-be-the-loser proposition. Under the 10th amendment states would have a whole lot more to say about the business of our nation. The Federal government would still be in charge over matters outlined within the powers given to it by the Constitution, and each individual state would be in charge of the rest. That was the intent of the founders & framers of our Constitution ratified in 1789.

The Constitution of 1789 had some flaws in it. Almost all blacks were slaves, women were treated like dirt, and Native American Indians were treated less than dirt. Okay, those things have been fixed now. It is time for the pendulum of politics to swing back the other way. We have gone too far with a strong centralized government.

[barrytrot]

I agree State's Rights have gone the way of the dodo. And I bet at least 95% of people would prefer more power to the state than the nation.

[Bluegill]

Thogey, yes, I claim the personal exemption, I also take the standard exemption. So does everybody else who files. The two are combined on the EZ form instead of the two separate boxes to take them on the long form.

I don’t even know why they are there, the IRS could just adjust the rates in the tax tables to reflect them and eliminate the added math. Everybody gets them. There is no favoritism.

It reminds me of the psychology of stores raising their prices 10% then having a 10% off sale.

Barrytrot, once again, you are being intentionally semantic, dragging in irrelevant issues attempting to change the premise and obfuscate the issue at hand.

You were publicly called out not too long for similar behavior. You and a small select group of individuals on this forum love doing this.

So let’s keep this focused. I pose the questions.

Why do 2 people working side by side earning the exact same salary, one with kids and a mortgage, and one without, pay two different tax rates?

Why does the one get a discount?

Also, by your reasoning, if two people pay the same rate of $30k, but ones gets a check back for $5k, he is on the dole. But if one pays $30k and the other pays $25k with no refunds, neither are on the dole. Everything netted out the same… Somebody paid more than the other for the same services.

Why was that person getting a $5k discount on his tax bill?

How is this not a back handed stealth handout? The bottom line results are the same…

Sheikh, if you were joking, an emoticon or two would have been a big help in distinguishing that. The tone of your first post came across as something completely different.

As far as selling CA, how about we make it a package and throw in NYC as a buyer incentive.

[68Camaro]

If you extend your reasoning to the limit then everyone is "on the dole" unless they are paying the maximum possible tax rate with zero deductions. Of course, it's absurd, and doesn't add anything to this discussion. It just derails it and borders on trollish.

[Rodebaugh]

Bluegill, that’s an interesting way to look at things. I am not sure if I can agree with your logic as it pertains to the definition of dole. I understand dole to be the act of receiving assistance in a sum that outweighs ones current contributions to that same system.

[barrytrot]

Thogey, yes, I claim the personal exemption, I also take the standard exemption. So does everybody else who files. The two are combined on the EZ form instead of the two separate boxes to take them on the long form.

I don’t even know why they are there, the IRS could just adjust the rates in the tax tables to reflect them and eliminate the added math. Everybody gets them. There is no favoritism.

It reminds me of the psychology of stores raising their prices 10% then having a 10% off sale.

Barrytrot, once again, you are being intentionally semantic, dragging in irrelevant issues attempting to change the premise and obfuscate the issue at hand.

You were publicly called out not too long for similar behavior. You and a small select group of individuals on this forum love doing this.

So let’s keep this focused. I pose the questions.

Why do 2 people working side by side earning the exact same salary, one with kids and a mortgage, and one without, pay two different tax rates?

Why does the one get a discount?

Also, by your reasoning, if two people pay the same rate of $30k, but ones gets a check back for $5k, he is on the dole. But if one pays $30k and the other pays $25k with no refunds, neither are on the dole. Everything netted out the same… Somebody paid more than the other for the same services.

Why was that person getting a $5k discount on his tax bill?

How is this not a back handed stealth handout? The bottom line results are the same…

Sheikh, if you were joking, an emoticon or two would have been a big help in distinguishing that. The tone of your first post came across as something completely different.

As far as selling CA, how about we make it a package and throw in NYC as a buyer incentive.

Bottom line: Why is paying being on the dole?

Can you explain that?

Paying less is still paying is it not? i.e. 1 is a number as is 5. I still call that the most outlandish thing I've heard lately.

[barrytrot]

Barrytrot, once again, you are being intentionally semantic, dragging in irrelevant issues attempting to change the premise and obfuscate the issue at hand.

You were publicly called out not too long for similar behavior.

I apologized for that and if I thought I had done the same here I would again apologize. I don't believe that is the case.

I also apologized to the person calling me out directly via "pm" and we worked things out to my knowledge.


To the posts I made here: I don't see how they are in any way egregious. Nor are they an intentional attempt to skirt the pretty simplistic issue that those that file their taxes legally are somehow getting "dole" from Uncle Sam. That's a nonsensical notion in my opinion. And as 68Cam says that would probably put 95% of people supposedly on the dole.

I believe based on your post that only those filing the EZ form would be "off the dole". Pretty hilarious reasoning.

[Sheikh_yer_Bu'Tay]

Sheikh, if you were joking, an emoticon or two would have been a big help in distinguishing that. The tone of your first post came across as something completely different.

As far as selling CA, how about we make it a package and throw in NYC as a buyer incentive.

I will try to remember to use the emoticons next time. I am surprised the A-hole comment drew so much notice. Please note that was not the complete sentence. The second half of that sentence referenced "silly names" the Blues have called Reds. Many of which I cannot mention here. Okay, I'll try to be more clear next time.

I was only halfway joking. The other half is serious. The level of vitriol in politics is risen to stratospheric levels. In the age of Honor, there would have been thousands of duels to the death by now. We are approaching the threshold of being a dysfunctional nation (if we are not already there). Why do we have to do this? IF we are so incompatible, let's at least have a trial separation. "Separate maintenance" I think they call it. Partition off the country and let's see who can do a better job of running things. Four years is not enough. Give it a decade or two for each color's eco. plan to work out.

Include NYC into the California deal? SOLD!

[SoFa]

Saying a taxpayer is on the dole because he/she claims a deduction is similar to saying an entrepreneur "didn't build that" because he uses the govt built roads etc.

[barrytrot]

Saying a taxpayer is on the dole because he/she claims a deduction is similar to saying an entrepreneur "didn't build that" because he uses the govt built roads etc.

CLASSIC

[Engineer]

If bluegill isn't paying the AMT, he's on the dole.

[Whinstone]

If Texas secedes...I'm moving

[barrytrot]

If Texas secedes...I'm moving

I would as well. And I think a lot of "top talent" would move from the "49" to the "ONE".

[barrytrot]

Oh, and just in case they say "no more joiners" I already own land in Texas

[Bluegill]

Bottom line: Why is paying being on the dole?

I never said that. I said those who are paying less because of a preferential tax break available to specific segment of society are getting a backhanded stealth handout.

Can you explain that?

I already did, refer to earlier posts. You still haven’t answered my questions. You skirted, deflected, but no direct answer to a direct question.

Paying less is still paying is it not? i.e. 1 is a number as is 5. I still call that the most outlandish thing I've heard lately.

We’ve already covered this. Again, refer to earlier posts…

I believe based on your post that only those filing the EZ form would be "off the dole". Pretty hilarious reasoning.

I never even remotely implied or said that either.

Good grief Barry, you are still doing it. You have managed to turn this completely around.

We obviously are going to disagree on the definitions of dole and backhanded stealth handout. So let's change the vernacular. It’s a subsidy. Created by a voting block voting themselves a reduction in their tax liability. It’s no different than a corporation getting a subsidy.

Obviously this is also a sacred cow for several people here. Let me guess, those who are upset about this axiom have kids and/or a mortgage, and don’t want their cozy government subsidy threatened, or want to realize and face their hypocrisy.

How about we not only end the tax breaks for having kids and claiming ones mortgage interest. But we then give renters with no kids a tax break for being so. There would be no temper tantrums and screaming and yelling from the home owners with kids..?

As far as comparing these immoral selective tax breaks to Obama’s comment is silly, and you know it. That’s a cheap desperate shot.

And to the AMT, dragging the progressive tax structure into this conversation is not cool or relevant. We are talking quite specifically about tax breaks for dependents and mortgage interest, within a tax bracket.

Wow, Insinuating I’m a troll because I bring up a topic someone’s not comfortable with. Seriously, are we now stooping to that level. And for it not contributing to the conversation, really, it is the conversation…

So the same questions I asked earlier still stand, if anybody is willing to be intellectually honest.

As to the 95% supposedly on the dole. Well close, it does illustrate the point I made way back at the beginning of this thread. There is no real difference between Reds and Blues. Most everybody is getting something one way or another from the government, be it overtly or not, yet are critical of others who do the same. I maintain both Reds and Blues are hypocrites.

[barrytrot]

Bottom line: Why is paying being on the dole?

I never said that. I said those who are paying less because of a preferential tax break available to specific segment of society are getting a backhanded stealth handout.

Can you explain that?

I already did, refer to earlier posts. You still haven’t answered my questions. You skirted, deflected, but no direct answer to a direct question.

Paying less is still paying is it not? i.e. 1 is a number as is 5. I still call that the most outlandish thing I've heard lately.

We’ve already covered this. Again, refer to earlier posts…

I believe based on your post that only those filing the EZ form would be "off the dole". Pretty hilarious reasoning.

I never even remotely implied or said that either.

Good grief Barry, you are still doing it. You have managed to turn this completely around.

We obviously are going to disagree on the definitions of dole and backhanded stealth handout. So let's change the vernacular. It’s a subsidy. Created by a voting block voting themselves a reduction in their tax liability. It’s no different than a corporation getting a subsidy.

Obviously this is also a sacred cow for several people here. Let me guess, those who are upset about this axiom have kids and/or a mortgage, and don’t want their cozy government subsidy threatened, or want to realize and face their hypocrisy.

How about we not only end the tax breaks for having kids and claiming ones mortgage interest. But we then give renters with no kids a tax break for being so. There would be no temper tantrums and screaming and yelling from the home owners with kids..?

As far as comparing these immoral selective tax breaks to Obama’s comment is silly, and you know it. That’s a cheap desperate shot.

And to the AMT, dragging the progressive tax structure into this conversation is not cool or relevant. We are talking quite specifically about tax breaks for dependents and mortgage interest, within a tax bracket.

Wow, Insinuating I’m a troll because I bring up a topic someone’s not comfortable with. Seriously, are we now stooping to that level. And for it not contributing to the conversation, really, it is the conversation…

So the same questions I asked earlier still stand, if anybody is willing to be intellectually honest.

As to the 95% supposedly on the dole. Well close, it does illustrate the point I made way back at the beginning of this thread. There is no real difference between Reds and Blues. Most everybody is getting something one way or another from the government, be it overtly or not, yet are critical of others who do the same. I maintain both Reds and Blues are hypocrites.

Interesting that you mentioned me by name but quoted several other sources Anyway on to your clarification:

Thanks for clarifying, as this greatly changes what I and others thought your stance was. Your use of the word "dole" in conjunction with your original post was an incredibly poor choice of words it seems.

Ok you are upset about SPECIFICALLY -> mortgage interest credit and dependents credit. Got it.


That being the topic -> I would gladly give up those deductions for the chance at a FLAT TAX. And I would gladly give them up instead of having to take across the board tax increases. They are not a sacred cow to me in any way.

In real life though they aren't giving us that choice. The government is not saying, "hey people we could lower taxes if you let us use a flat tax." or "hey people we could lower taxes if it weren't for the mortgage credit and dependents credit". Once they start saying that I will be the first to shout -> sounds good to me. But that's not going to happen.

Do I think a "renter's credit" and a "no kids credit" would be a good replacement for the above 2? -> Not really, but if they decided to change them to that, I would be surprised simply because for the last several years it has been sort of a sign of success to buy a house, so reversing that trend would be strange. Would I care? Not really since mathematically people tend to over exaggerate their benefit gained by a tax break to the point of making unsound decisions. So changing these 2 and/or removing them wouldn't cause me any stress whatsoever.


Ok: did I now answer your questions? If not, restate the ones that I have not.

[barrytrot]

Oh and to your "both Reds and Blues are hypocrites" -> Not this red blooded American! And, I dare say, not a LOT of people on this forum.

We don't want a single thing from Uncle Sam except:

- Military
- Roads

That's it.

And some probably could do without those 2.

Do I pay my fair share for the military and roads? -> WAY WAY more than that.

Do I want any other form of assistance for me or anyone else -> No freekin' way! As an example, I voted AGAINST "private school vouchers" which would have put money into the pockets of basically 100% of my friends, but we didn't want the Government in our affairs!

Do I want funding for schools, the homeless, the arts, whatever? -> No freekin' way. I can show you in 5 minutes how mathematically all of those things would be better off without giving the government $100 and having them filter $20 down to them. How about we the people choose what we the people care about and give them $50 and they GET $50!!!


I am not a hypocrite (well at least not in this area) and I wager that many others here aren't either.

[Sheikh_yer_Bu'Tay]

My thread is being hijacked! The subject matter of this thread is "Can Red Secede for Blue? PLEASE?!"

We are a divided nation. If we do not change the political trajectory we are now on, it's only a matter of time before we have a one party government and civil war. We don't have to do this. I am looking for conversation on this subject matter.

Bluegill, I get what you are trying to say but your extremism is discrediting your logic.

Calling tax deductions "dole", as in "being on the dole" is just plain incorrect.

Here is the definition of dole:dole 1 (dl)
n.
1. Charitable dispensation of goods, especially money, food, or clothing.
2. A share of money, food, or clothing that has been charitably given.
3. Chiefly British The distribution by the government of relief payments to the unemployed; welfare.
4. Archaic One's fate.
tr.v. doled, dol·ing, doles
1. To dispense as charity.
2. To give out in small portions; distribute sparingly. See Synonyms at distribute.
Idiom:
on the dole
Receiving regular relief payments from or as if from the government.

Tax deductions are subsidies to encourage behavior favored by the government. The government does not "dole" out tax deductions, it allows less money be paid into the government at tax time. This "less money" paid in is the governments' way of compensating individuals, families, and corps. for doing what the gov. encourages to be done.

Dole, on the other hand, is relief paid out by an entity (the government in this case) to those unable, or unwilling, to provide for themselves.

I asked you what you did for a living. You have ignored that question, so, I am left to my own imagination as to what you do in order to file an EZ form. I have itemized my taxes since my college days. I worked and saved for ten years (8 to 18) and paid for college out of my own pocket. I have been an employer/contractor for most of my life. My trade is a high risk business. I have never missed a payroll in my life. When we are out of work, I make payroll out of my savings. I am very proud my FUTA schedule payments are the lowest possible. When I am hurt, I do not apply for workmen's comp. I have enough injuries to qualify for some disability and my wife is 100% disabled. We are too proud to ask for the disability dole.

I take offense to your calling me a hypocrite.

Bluegill, you have taken my thread of friendly banter and turned it into a vehicle for your personal tirade. Enough. Stick to the subject matter, or get off my thread and start your own.

[Engineer]

I'd see the refundable tax credits as a form of dole, but not tax deductions. Enough said on that issue.

At this point, the best option for Red to secede from Blue is a pandemic or some other disaster which wipes out the major population centers. A zombie uprising would be my preference.

Other than that, I'm afraid the only option would be a general strike by the rural areas. The Blue areas are dependent on the Red areas for their basic necessities. The Red areas, for the most part, are self-sufficient.