Hopefully this lax attitude towards taxes will impact the policies they enact
- Thread starter WINEX_IHB
- Start date
[quote author="trrenter" date=1233734737][quote author="bltserv" date=1233727909]Do any of you guys own a business ?
Ever had to deal with the California State Board of Equalization ?
Ever survived an Audit with these sharks ?
You had better have EVERY invoice. EVERY tracking number to prove
the transaction was exempt from the State Sales Tax.
Yuck. "Consumption Tax". Totally sucks
if your the business collecting and paying that tax. For large accounts
like Car Dealers they literally just suck it out of your account the next week
if you dont file the MONTHLY return. Lets just put more burden on the businessman
shall we.
It should be:
Flat Tax. NO EXEMPTIONS. PERIOD. Simple and sweet. Percentage of Net Income.
Problem is. It eliminates the bulk of the IRS and CPA`s. Tragic.
The rich couldn`t munipulate the system. Tragic.</blockquote>
Did we actually agree on something? What a crazy day.
Flat tax must be the right idea then.</blockquote>
If BLTServe ever agrees with something I say, I'll take time to seriously reconsider my opinion.
Ever had to deal with the California State Board of Equalization ?
Ever survived an Audit with these sharks ?
You had better have EVERY invoice. EVERY tracking number to prove
the transaction was exempt from the State Sales Tax.
Yuck. "Consumption Tax". Totally sucks
if your the business collecting and paying that tax. For large accounts
like Car Dealers they literally just suck it out of your account the next week
if you dont file the MONTHLY return. Lets just put more burden on the businessman
shall we.
It should be:
Flat Tax. NO EXEMPTIONS. PERIOD. Simple and sweet. Percentage of Net Income.
Problem is. It eliminates the bulk of the IRS and CPA`s. Tragic.
The rich couldn`t munipulate the system. Tragic.</blockquote>
Did we actually agree on something? What a crazy day.
Flat tax must be the right idea then.</blockquote>
If BLTServe ever agrees with something I say, I'll take time to seriously reconsider my opinion.
President Reagan had an idea that would be wonderful to see implemented. Rather than paying federal taxes versus a payroll deduction, taxes would be due in full in one lump sum once a year. The reasoning is that if people realized just how much money they gave to the Feds, they wouldn't stand for what we are paying for.
Trooper_IHB
New member
This Democrat is disgusted with Daschle, et al.
graphrix_IHB
New member
[quote author="Trooper" date=1233941819]This Democrat is disgusted with Daschle, et al.</blockquote>
I've never liked Daschle, he lost his balls a long time ago, even before he forgot how to pay his taxes. This favoritism of who has been around a while is not about change, and if it takes for dems losing their reputation for not paying their taxes to get Daschle out, then I am all for it. It's all about change and new thinking from both sides of the party, I welcome booting people out.
I've never liked Daschle, he lost his balls a long time ago, even before he forgot how to pay his taxes. This favoritism of who has been around a while is not about change, and if it takes for dems losing their reputation for not paying their taxes to get Daschle out, then I am all for it. It's all about change and new thinking from both sides of the party, I welcome booting people out.
green_cactus_IHB
New member
[quote author="skek" date=1233941529]Another Cabinet nominee isn't paying their taxes...Labor Secretary nominee Hilda Solis.
Per the <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/02/05/solis_senate_session_canceled.html?hpid=topnews">Washington Post</a>:
<blockquote>A Senate committee today abruptly canceled a session to consider President Obama's nomination of Rep. Hilda Solis to be labor secretary in the wake of a report saying that her husband yesterday paid about $6,400 to settle tax liens against his business ? liens that had been outstanding for as long as 16 years.</blockquote>
I wonder what our Democrat friends would be saying if we were dealing with revelations that a plurality of McCain's Cabinet appointees didn't pay their taxes. Blt? Cactus? Bueller?</blockquote>
I say all members of congress and senate should have their taxes audited. I'm pretty disappointed at the current situation. You don't see me defending any of this.
Per the <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/02/05/solis_senate_session_canceled.html?hpid=topnews">Washington Post</a>:
<blockquote>A Senate committee today abruptly canceled a session to consider President Obama's nomination of Rep. Hilda Solis to be labor secretary in the wake of a report saying that her husband yesterday paid about $6,400 to settle tax liens against his business ? liens that had been outstanding for as long as 16 years.</blockquote>
I wonder what our Democrat friends would be saying if we were dealing with revelations that a plurality of McCain's Cabinet appointees didn't pay their taxes. Blt? Cactus? Bueller?</blockquote>
I say all members of congress and senate should have their taxes audited. I'm pretty disappointed at the current situation. You don't see me defending any of this.
TimHume_IHB
New member
[quote author="skek" date=1233941529]
I wonder what our Democrat friends would be saying if we were dealing with revelations that a plurality of McCain's Cabinet appointees didn't pay their taxes. Blt? Cactus? Bueller?</blockquote>
I think all this tax evasion stinks! The thing about not paying employment taxes on your maid is something I can understand someone doing. Which one did that? I think that person should get to pay the bill and still keep her nomination. The people that have had tax bills due for years, though, I don't get. Why hasn't the IRS already thrown them in jail?
I wonder what our Democrat friends would be saying if we were dealing with revelations that a plurality of McCain's Cabinet appointees didn't pay their taxes. Blt? Cactus? Bueller?</blockquote>
I think all this tax evasion stinks! The thing about not paying employment taxes on your maid is something I can understand someone doing. Which one did that? I think that person should get to pay the bill and still keep her nomination. The people that have had tax bills due for years, though, I don't get. Why hasn't the IRS already thrown them in jail?
awgee_IHB
New member
[quote author="T!m" date=1233974819][quote author="skek" date=1233941529]
I wonder what our Democrat friends would be saying if we were dealing with revelations that a plurality of McCain's Cabinet appointees didn't pay their taxes. Blt? Cactus? Bueller?</blockquote>
I think all this tax evasion stinks! The thing about not paying employment taxes on your maid is something I can understand someone doing. Which one did that? I think that person should get to pay the bill and still keep her nomination. The people that have had tax bills due for years, though, I don't get. Why hasn't the IRS already thrown them in jail?</blockquote>
Most folks who have domestic help understand that they have to pay employment taxes for household employees, and all politicians know this. The IRS does not throw anybody in jail. Some perpetrators of tax fraud end up in federal prison, but the IRS does not have the authority to put them there. The IRS can give evidence of fraud. Most taxpayers who have an unpaid tax liability end up paying, along with penalties and interest and rarely do they go to prison. And many times, the penalties and interest are more than the original assessment.
I wonder what our Democrat friends would be saying if we were dealing with revelations that a plurality of McCain's Cabinet appointees didn't pay their taxes. Blt? Cactus? Bueller?</blockquote>
I think all this tax evasion stinks! The thing about not paying employment taxes on your maid is something I can understand someone doing. Which one did that? I think that person should get to pay the bill and still keep her nomination. The people that have had tax bills due for years, though, I don't get. Why hasn't the IRS already thrown them in jail?</blockquote>
Most folks who have domestic help understand that they have to pay employment taxes for household employees, and all politicians know this. The IRS does not throw anybody in jail. Some perpetrators of tax fraud end up in federal prison, but the IRS does not have the authority to put them there. The IRS can give evidence of fraud. Most taxpayers who have an unpaid tax liability end up paying, along with penalties and interest and rarely do they go to prison. And many times, the penalties and interest are more than the original assessment.
awgee_IHB
New member
The Dem and Republicans are both motivated to continue business as usual. As long as the American public keeps thinking that there is a difference in the two major political parties, and keep looking to the politicians for the solutions, the American public will continue to be raped of their productivity. And they will continue to get exactly what they deserve.
<a href="http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/tx14_paul/AbolishtheFed.shtml">Ron Paul</a>
<a href="http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/tx14_paul/AbolishtheFed.shtml">Ron Paul</a>
green_cactus_IHB
New member
[quote author="awgee" date=1233986600]The Dem and Republicans are both motivated to continue business as usual. As long as the American public keeps thinking that there is a difference in the two major political parties, and keep looking to the politicians for the solutions, the American public will continue to be raped of their productivity. And they will continue to get exactly what they deserve.
<a href="http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/tx14_paul/AbolishtheFed.shtml">Ron Paul</a></blockquote>
He is just the wrong "package". You won't see a challenge to both parties until there is both a different message and an attractive platform for it. Watching Ron Paul during the debates was like listening to a disheveled homeless guy ranting about the end of the world. There is a lot of support for his libertarian views and he might have the right ideas - he just isn't the best person to advocate for it.
<a href="http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/tx14_paul/AbolishtheFed.shtml">Ron Paul</a></blockquote>
He is just the wrong "package". You won't see a challenge to both parties until there is both a different message and an attractive platform for it. Watching Ron Paul during the debates was like listening to a disheveled homeless guy ranting about the end of the world. There is a lot of support for his libertarian views and he might have the right ideas - he just isn't the best person to advocate for it.
O
Oscar_IHB
Guest
[quote author="green_cactus" date=1233992197]He is just the wrong "package". You won't see a challenge to both parties until there is both a different message and an attractive platform for it. Watching Ron Paul during the debates was like listening to a disheveled homeless guy ranting about the end of the world. There is a lot of support for his libertarian views and he might have the right ideas - he just isn't the best person to advocate for it.</blockquote>
And therein lies the Libertarian Conundrum: who is going to stand up and articulate the Libertarian belief as it relates to current events and not sound like a disheveled homeless guy ranting abiout the end of the world. The kind of political system envisioned by the Libertarian Party was abandoned before Roosevelt took office... Teddy Roosevelt, that is. The moment an LP candidate begins advocating withdrawal from all international bases, they lose anyone with an inkling of what that would do to our defense and intelligence capabilities. When they begin advocating a reduction in the size and scope of the Federal government, they lose anyone who cares about public education, public lands, national health policies, clean, water, food, and air, etc. Now, I will grant that Ron Paul isn't the most telegenic candidate, but it doesn't help that the views of the Libertarians are so far afield from the status quo.
And therein lies the Libertarian Conundrum: who is going to stand up and articulate the Libertarian belief as it relates to current events and not sound like a disheveled homeless guy ranting abiout the end of the world. The kind of political system envisioned by the Libertarian Party was abandoned before Roosevelt took office... Teddy Roosevelt, that is. The moment an LP candidate begins advocating withdrawal from all international bases, they lose anyone with an inkling of what that would do to our defense and intelligence capabilities. When they begin advocating a reduction in the size and scope of the Federal government, they lose anyone who cares about public education, public lands, national health policies, clean, water, food, and air, etc. Now, I will grant that Ron Paul isn't the most telegenic candidate, but it doesn't help that the views of the Libertarians are so far afield from the status quo.
awgee_IHB
New member
[quote author="Oscar" date=1233993968][quote author="green_cactus" date=1233992197][quote author="awgee" date=1233986600]He is just the wrong "package". You won't see a challenge to both parties until there is both a different message and an attractive platform for it. Watching Ron Paul during the debates was like listening to a disheveled homeless guy ranting about the end of the world. There is a lot of support for his libertarian views and he might have the right ideas - he just isn't the best person to advocate for it.</blockquote>
And therein lies the Libertarian Conundrum: who is going to stand up and articulate the Libertarian belief as it relates to current events and not sound like a disheveled homeless guy ranting abiout the end of the world. The kind of political system envisioned by the Libertarian Party was abandoned before Roosevelt took office... Teddy Roosevelt, that is. The moment an LP candidate begins advocating withdrawal from all international bases, they lose anyone with an inkling of what that would do to our defense and intelligence capabilities. When they begin advocating a reduction in the size and scope of the Federal government, they lose anyone who cares about public education, public lands, national health policies, clean, water, food, and air, etc. Now, I will grant that Ron Paul isn't the most telegenic candidate, but it doesn't help that the views of the Libertarians are so far afield from the status quo.</blockquote>
Exactly. So, what you will get is the status quo. The American people will get exactly what they voted for.
And therein lies the Libertarian Conundrum: who is going to stand up and articulate the Libertarian belief as it relates to current events and not sound like a disheveled homeless guy ranting abiout the end of the world. The kind of political system envisioned by the Libertarian Party was abandoned before Roosevelt took office... Teddy Roosevelt, that is. The moment an LP candidate begins advocating withdrawal from all international bases, they lose anyone with an inkling of what that would do to our defense and intelligence capabilities. When they begin advocating a reduction in the size and scope of the Federal government, they lose anyone who cares about public education, public lands, national health policies, clean, water, food, and air, etc. Now, I will grant that Ron Paul isn't the most telegenic candidate, but it doesn't help that the views of the Libertarians are so far afield from the status quo.</blockquote>
Exactly. So, what you will get is the status quo. The American people will get exactly what they voted for.
[quote author="Oscar" date=1233993968][quote author="awgee" date=1233986600]He is just the wrong "package". You won't see a challenge to both parties until there is both a different message and an attractive platform for it. Watching Ron Paul during the debates was like listening to a disheveled homeless guy ranting about the end of the world. There is a lot of support for his libertarian views and he might have the right ideas - he just isn't the best person to advocate for it.</blockquote>
And therein lies the Libertarian Conundrum: who is going to stand up and articulate the Libertarian belief as it relates to current events and not sound like a disheveled homeless guy ranting abiout the end of the world. The kind of political system envisioned by the Libertarian Party was abandoned before Roosevelt took office... Teddy Roosevelt, that is. The moment an LP candidate begins advocating withdrawal from all international bases, they lose anyone with an inkling of what that would do to our defense and intelligence capabilities. When they begin advocating a reduction in the size and scope of the Federal government, they lose anyone who cares about public education, public lands, national health policies, clean, water, food, and air, etc. Now, I will grant that Ron Paul isn't the most telegenic candidate, but it doesn't help that the views of the Libertarians are so far afield from the status quo.</blockquote>
No, the true Libertarian Conundrum is that Libertarians favor a restoration of states and individual rights. That can't happen without influencing the powers that be at the Federal level. But that requires that powerbase to give up their influence for absolutely nothing in return.
The only practical way to enact the vision is by supporting conservative candidates and groups like the <a href="http://www.rlc.org/">Republican Liberty Caucus</a>
And therein lies the Libertarian Conundrum: who is going to stand up and articulate the Libertarian belief as it relates to current events and not sound like a disheveled homeless guy ranting abiout the end of the world. The kind of political system envisioned by the Libertarian Party was abandoned before Roosevelt took office... Teddy Roosevelt, that is. The moment an LP candidate begins advocating withdrawal from all international bases, they lose anyone with an inkling of what that would do to our defense and intelligence capabilities. When they begin advocating a reduction in the size and scope of the Federal government, they lose anyone who cares about public education, public lands, national health policies, clean, water, food, and air, etc. Now, I will grant that Ron Paul isn't the most telegenic candidate, but it doesn't help that the views of the Libertarians are so far afield from the status quo.</blockquote>
No, the true Libertarian Conundrum is that Libertarians favor a restoration of states and individual rights. That can't happen without influencing the powers that be at the Federal level. But that requires that powerbase to give up their influence for absolutely nothing in return.
The only practical way to enact the vision is by supporting conservative candidates and groups like the <a href="http://www.rlc.org/">Republican Liberty Caucus</a>
awgee_IHB
New member
[quote author="WINEX" date=1234000015][quote author="Oscar" date=1233993968][quote author="awgee" date=1233986600]He is just the wrong "package". You won't see a challenge to both parties until there is both a different message and an attractive platform for it. Watching Ron Paul during the debates was like listening to a disheveled homeless guy ranting about the end of the world. There is a lot of support for his libertarian views and he might have the right ideas - he just isn't the best person to advocate for it.</blockquote>
And therein lies the Libertarian Conundrum: who is going to stand up and articulate the Libertarian belief as it relates to current events and not sound like a disheveled homeless guy ranting abiout the end of the world. The kind of political system envisioned by the Libertarian Party was abandoned before Roosevelt took office... Teddy Roosevelt, that is. The moment an LP candidate begins advocating withdrawal from all international bases, they lose anyone with an inkling of what that would do to our defense and intelligence capabilities. When they begin advocating a reduction in the size and scope of the Federal government, they lose anyone who cares about public education, public lands, national health policies, clean, water, food, and air, etc. Now, I will grant that Ron Paul isn't the most telegenic candidate, but it doesn't help that the views of the Libertarians are so far afield from the status quo.</blockquote>
No, the true Libertarian Conundrum is that Libertarians favor a restoration of states and individual rights. That can't happen without influencing the powers that be at the Federal level. But that requires that powerbase to give up their influence for absolutely nothing in return.
The only practical way to enact the vision is by supporting conservative candidates and groups like the <a href="http://www.rlc.org/">Republican Liberty Caucus</a></blockquote>
If, yeah I know it is a big if, we vote out the incumbents, there is no powerbase except the American voter.
And therein lies the Libertarian Conundrum: who is going to stand up and articulate the Libertarian belief as it relates to current events and not sound like a disheveled homeless guy ranting abiout the end of the world. The kind of political system envisioned by the Libertarian Party was abandoned before Roosevelt took office... Teddy Roosevelt, that is. The moment an LP candidate begins advocating withdrawal from all international bases, they lose anyone with an inkling of what that would do to our defense and intelligence capabilities. When they begin advocating a reduction in the size and scope of the Federal government, they lose anyone who cares about public education, public lands, national health policies, clean, water, food, and air, etc. Now, I will grant that Ron Paul isn't the most telegenic candidate, but it doesn't help that the views of the Libertarians are so far afield from the status quo.</blockquote>
No, the true Libertarian Conundrum is that Libertarians favor a restoration of states and individual rights. That can't happen without influencing the powers that be at the Federal level. But that requires that powerbase to give up their influence for absolutely nothing in return.
The only practical way to enact the vision is by supporting conservative candidates and groups like the <a href="http://www.rlc.org/">Republican Liberty Caucus</a></blockquote>
If, yeah I know it is a big if, we vote out the incumbents, there is no powerbase except the American voter.
No_Such_Reality_IHB
New member
[quote author="awgee" date=1234008312]
If, yeah I know it is a big if, we vote out the incumbents, there is no powerbase except the American voter.</blockquote>
Um, you mean the money. You live in California and have seen how easily a few million dollars in advertising leads the masses down the chutes to slaughter.
If, yeah I know it is a big if, we vote out the incumbents, there is no powerbase except the American voter.</blockquote>
Um, you mean the money. You live in California and have seen how easily a few million dollars in advertising leads the masses down the chutes to slaughter.