Today’s USA Today has a bombshell – at least for people who haven’t been paying attention: Nearly half of Americans pay no federal income taxes.
I’ve tried to explain this before to my liberal friends who insist that “rich people” don’t pay their fair share and whenever I’ve brought up that nearly half of Americans pay zilch to the fed in income taxes they scoff that it’s probably some far right propaganda. Nope. It’s real.
As April 15th comes up and I look at the million+ I pay in taxes (on behalf of myself and my S-corporation) I wince at all the economic opportunities that are missed because of the money being siphoned off.
To understand the real impact of taxes, this year’s tax bill will delay the completion of our new studio by about 6 months which in turn delays the hiring of approximately 23 new workers (not count the # of jobs that simply won’t be created period or the opportunity costs).
Taxes don’t hurt “the rich”. They hurt the people who work for a living.
Europe was united at least 2 times in history. During the Roman empire 2k years ago, and during Charlemagne half that ago. So it CAN be done. No one said it would be easy.
Napoleon came close.
Unfortunately, so did the Nazis.
It can certainly be done.
(I won't quote the Nazi and Napoleon examples, 'cause it's on another page)
Yes. Because these kind of unification are so alike the U.S.'s.
Washingtown conquered the 13 colonies damn straight, and he set up a powerful centralised ruling seat of power, just like Charlemagne and Rome.
Or Napoleon and Hitler tried too. I mean, it's the right way of uniting a nation.
Cikomyr, that brings us back to how the Americans were simply smarter than the Europeans when it came to nation-building.
No, it brings us back to how the Americans states were all of the same generic origin and had little historical bad blood with each other. They united and form their supra-national entity with a self-defense outlook and economic cooperation.
Everything is simply so different between the two. You had the right motives, you did not had any bad history, and you knew you HAD to work together to resist Europe.
No, it brings us back to how the Americans states were all of the same generic origin and had little historical bad blood with each other.
Why wouldn't Germans and Frenchmen in America have the same problems with each other as Germans and Frenchmen in Europe?
They united and form their supra-national entity with a self-defense outlook and economic cooperation.
Yes, they were clever enough to do that.
Everything is so simple if you forget bad blood.
Because they are somewhat homogeneously mixed in the big melting pot that is the USA, while in Europe, they are concentrated in regions.
Nothing to do with cleverness. Everything to do with necessity.
You don't forget bad blood. You are simply lucky to have been brought up in a country where there aren't much with other countries. The worst you have is the bad blood coming from inside the country, with your black population. Ain't your fault. Ain't their fault. It just is, because of the History you've been through.
People make decisions. Bad blood does not just happen. It's not physics, it's society.
If your society is advanced enough, you can overcome bad blood.
Ok, I'll bite.
I grew up in West-Berlin, a city then surrounded by Russian troops and mine fields as a result of World War II. My family's home in World War 2 was partly destroyed by what I think would have been American and Russian bombs.
I studied Hebrew in Haifa when Hizbullah fired rockets at my school. Hizbullah's leader announced that he wanted to kill all Jews, me included.
But here's the thing. I certainly don't hate Germans, or Americans. My Russian teacher would be surprised to learn that there is "bad blood" between me and Russians. So would my Russian-Jewish friends in Israel, I suppose. And I absolutely adore Lebanese history and the Lebanese people, our closest relatives.
So maybe you have to explain the "bad blood" concept to me because I don't get it.
Plus I am so totally in favour of the European Union, you can hardly stop me from getting angry at mobile phone companies for treating EU member states as foreign countries all the time.
For all I know (and what my parents told me) bad blood is something you make, not something you are born with and cannot help.
Sorry to burst your bubble here. The bad blood you speak of does not exist except in the news media and race baiters that make a living off of hate.
If I remember my American History correctly we had a lot of bad blood in the beginning. We had Methodists that refused to sit at the same table as Baptist, or Catholics. Somehow they still formed a constitution that works 200 years later. Then we acquired territories in order to grow. Spanish, and French territories, we still have arguments over that. The opportunity was and is still there for bad blood. We were smart enough not to let it affect our growth as a nation. Then there was the separate states with their own money and laws. Money in New York was worthless in New Jersey. If you were from the nations capital (New York) then the other states were not as important, to fix that we created a military district. The District of Columbia. That is the seat of power and it not ruled by any state. It is the only land that is truly owned and controlled by the Federal Government all other federal land is leased and can be taken back by the state. America did not become a melting pot until 1900 before that there were signs that told who was welcome and who was not. "No Irish, Jews, or dogs allowed" No Chinese, niggers, or Jews allowed" When my uncle was living in Miami Florida as a child he rememberd signs on the beaches that read No Jews, niggers or dogs allowed" All of that is gone now. We learned to get along and prosper.
Europe on the other hand is still fighting wars that have ended decades, and centuries ago. When there was a Soviet Union they clamped down on religious violence by eliminating religion. As soon as the Soviet Union fell they picked up the war as if it never ended. 70 years had passed and people still remembered that my great great grand father did not like your great great grand father even though we lived next door to each other for 70 years and were friends under the Soviet Union. If you keep hate in your heart for two generations then you deserve what you get.
No one was commenting on the method used, only on the fact is is possible. And while force was used in the past, the 2 examples I gave had one thing in common. They merged the respective cultures into an over all culture and for the most part did not try to treat one culture as inferior to the other.
And that is the key.
As for Washington imposing its will - what do you think the Civil war was all about?
Again, the perception is not the reality. The Toledo war? Quakers the same as Catholics? Roger Williams love of Massachusetts? The Kansas Red Legs compassion for the Show me State? The State of Franklin's love fest with North Carolina?
America was a collection of conflicts. As you noted, none as long running as some that were going on in Europe, but only because of age, not lack of desire.
And these are just as powerful and Grand-Scale as the Hundred Years Wars, the Seven Years war, the Napoleonic Wars, and about all other freaking conflicts that erupted across Europe.
You have to admit, the USA had it easy, internally-wise. A big empty territory to colonise, slave labor, with weak neighbours and savages as the only treath, and the British Empire more occupied at keeping Europe from uniting under a single rule than trying to reconquer you.
It led to the super-power we all know and love.
They could have been, had the Americans allowed them to continue.
The War of 1812 and the Civil War were definitely large-scale.
Germany had a big territory to colonise in the middle ages but somehow managed to be at war with itself all the time.
As for slave labour, the northern states (who ultimately shaped what the US would be) were not much into slavery.
When you have millions of combatants, you make headlines. When your population is a few thousand, and everyone is carrying a gun (that is large enough to), you do not seem to make any news. The scope was smaller because the population was smaller, but the animosity was no less than that over seas.
And easy? Hindsight is 20-20. But that does not change the facts. It was not easy nor did slave labor open up the west (it was used for the established areas almost exclusively). The "blacks" out west were almost totally free, as the means to keep them enslaved just did not exist.
Empty? Geronimo and Cochise would beg to differ with you (and they made their displeasure well known).
It is easy to dismiss that which was and is accomplished as easy - since the people made it look that way. However those writing the history were the ones that lived. You do not hear from the dead. But I suspect they would disagree with you if they had a voice.
As a country's citizen, we have the obligation to pay Tax. It is a big expense that affects every working people in the community. Most consumers will be paying more for taxes in 2013 than they did in 2012. However, that is not the only bite your pocketbook will withstand in the current year. Here is a review of just some of the things that will cost much more in this young year. (visit now located at https://personalmoneynetwork.com/)
The obligations only extends for money used for the common good. Not for individual self enrichment.
I agree with the sentiment.
Taxes must be paid and government must use them for the common good. The common good can help the poor. In fact it should.
Government must finance itself, the police, the military, should finance fire brigades, emergency services, can finance schools, hospitals, and soup kitchens.
In fact I don't have a problem with government providing any service anyone might think the poor (or everyone) need.
But the government, I believe, MUST NOT give tax money to people. The government can and should provide services to EVERYONE, but not pay money to SPECIFIC people.
I can see four distinct positions when it comes to taxes (ignoring positions regarding what taxes there should be).
The first is people who argue against government and against taxes. They are anarchists.
The second is people who accept taxation and want minimal government.
The third is people who accept taxation and have no specific problem with the size of government. Within this group there can be stark differences as to how big government should be. I myself belong to this group and while I prefer small government, I have no ideological problem with big government.
The fourth is people who accept taxation and insist on big government and on government granting privileges (i.e. pay tax money) to certain people. This group consists of communists and other supporters of an aristocracy (government of the self-proclaimed most excellent).
The first and fourth group are the outliers, the extremists.
The second and third group cover the vast area of legitimate politics, ranging from Ayn Rand (who is not opposed to taxation and certainly not against the authority of the state) to Karl Marx (who did actually oppose a lot of what today's self-proclaimed Marxists demand).
The fourth group is running the insane asylum here.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
