Comments on: Those Who Support Jokerkare Do So Because They Do Not Pay Taxes

By: Paul P

Paul P — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 23:56:14 +0000

What is described here is what has happened in Europe and in particular within Britain and France. There are so many people on the dole, that the amount needed to support those on the dole superscedes the amount collected in taxes. Eventually there are not enough taxpayers to support those on the dole. Although I hate to admit I watched it, in the movie "Sicko", by idiot, Michael Moore, one person said if Socialized Medicine were repealed there would be "riots in the streets".
So, do you get an idea of what will happen here if the amount of entitlements continues to increase? Look what happened when the government was not immediately available to rescue people from the rising waters in Lousiana. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue from repealing Obamacare? This should give you a sense of what happens once the redistribution of all of the wealth within a nation is complete. Once an entitlement is granted, those in receipt, begin to believe they deserve it. You shouldn't blame the recipient. The recipient is only getting what is offered. But once again we learn that a man led to water only drinks. He doesn't learn how to find it.

By: Peachey

Peachey — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:55:33 +0000

W-B
Social Security is a tax and not a entitlement program established for those that did not save or establish 401K's. Originally, Social Security was established using the life expectancy years of 59 for males, and 61 for females. As our life spans have dramatically increased, the proportion of recipients to payors has become a burden and a failing system. It is a good example of a Ponzi scheme within the government. You are looking at Social Security as if it were as insurance annuity plan and it is not.It was a safety net, not a retirement fund.The outlay is substantially more per recipient that their original pay in.I do not have difficulty with social security being paid out to current seniors, but, somewhere along the line Americans must be held accountable for their own finances and again begin saving money for their retirement. This concept has become obsolete with the rush to enact entitlement programs for all. Everyone should be paying taxes. It brings personal responsibility and accountability actions back into the framework of each life. I don't care if that person only ends up paying $ 100.00, they do need to contribute to a system that they feel free to draw from.

By: Tina Trent

Tina Trent — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:46:01 +0000

A little garbagy and a little garbled. "Women did not pay taxes, nor did they tend to serve in the military, hence their disenfranchisement." Know history, much? Do you think there were no female farmers, no female factory workers? Do you know anything about the history of taxation? Estate law? This is embarrassing buffoonery.

"Only men were able to vote before 1920, during the Progressive Era, Leninism, and the birth of the welfare state, when the idea came into vogue that government should extort us for our earnings in order to provide inferior goods and services (and any good or service which is consumed outside of the free market is necessarily inferior) to those who cannot afford respectable free market goods and services." Know . . . proofreading?

By: EGOE

EGOE — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:03:46 +0000

Like Oprah! She is surporting the very man that will jack up her taxes

By: Immortal

Immortal — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 04:52:37 +0000

Why don't you learn how to read? In the next line JE tells you that 3% of tax payers support Obamacare. What's 43% minus 3%? Or perhaps I'm being to hasty. An open minded thinker like you would never call someone a moron before actually reading the post would they? My mistake.

By: Rifleman

Rifleman — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 03:49:09 +0000

Lol, the 'social security' ponzi scheme will crash at least a decade before I hit 62, and medicare along with it, and that money will just be gone. They spent and spend every dime ever put in there. If you're not dead by 2030 (and with hussein and the dp's policies it'll be sooner), you'd better have a plan B.

You're right, they are socialistic systems, that's why I've opposed them all my life. I was never given a choice, but compelled to participate. I knew the only way I'd get a worse return on my money would be to stuff my mattress with it before I was an adult. I knew it wouldn't be there by the time I retired over 20 years ago, and planned accordingly. Like all socialistic systems, they are unjust, unsustainable, and rely on compulsion.

By: Rightwingarbage

Rightwingarbage — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:13:53 +0000

You're absolutely right. All those corporate heads with offshore accounts should be disenfranchised. You're article is one of the most fascist I've ever read on this site. No Really!!

By: Fool

Fool — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:07:25 +0000

I'd gladly keep my own money that I make and save it for paying my way during my enfeebled years. It's because of the burdening income tax that no one in the middle class can save.
When we are taxed, it's not just so someone I don't know can use my money. That's not the only result. It directly prevents me from using my own property for the benefit of the guy that knows what's best for himself…me!

You collectivists deplore us free market types because we want to make a profit. It's exactly because we don't have our entire life to work that we have a natural right to make a profit so we can pay for ourselves when we're old!

Or, do you think big government has done such a great job at taking care of people? Right! Just look at Detroit and any other inner city. Try living in the real world before you tell us who do how we should think.

By: John Edwards

John Edwards — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:56:59 +0000

The Kleptocrats will have a solution for that – give all their non-taxpaying voters gummint jobs. Doing what? Why, voting for Kleptocrats, of course!

By: johnMcCall

johnMcCall — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:08:08 +0000

We know what happened on that desert island when the king consented to give his final subject a lifetime government job, at high pay, digging a hole in the morning and filing it up that afternoon. All the workers were now high paid, working hard doing nothing, and there was no one left to produce the things all wanted to spend their big paychecks on. All had money but all promptly starved to death.

What a surprise!

By: Swemson

Swemson — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:41:41 +0000

Bravo !

Right on JE, those who pay no taxes should have no right to a vote on how taxpayer's money is spent.

I've long advocated what JE has had the courage to say here in a slightly more aggressive way. I believe that citizens must pay some minimum amount of income tax in order to be eligible to vote in federal elections. I also believe that people who do pay taxes should get votes in proportion to the amount of taxes they pay. For example:

A person making $30k pays 15% or $4,500 to the IRS, and a person making $300k pays 33% or $99,000. If we used $500 as the minimum income tax paid in order to vote, then the person paying $4,500 should get 9 votes, and the person paying $99,000 should get 198 votes.

When I was a young kid my parents bought a new house and I remember going shopping with them for new furniture. When we got to the part of the store for kid's rooms, I remember my parents arguing over whether they would buy my bedroom set in walnut or oak finish. Even though it was for my room, I didn't get a vote because I wasn't paying for it. That's as it should be.

The reason why America is in such trouble right now is that our Constitution has been ignored by decades of crooked politicians who campaign for office by promising the have-nots that they would give them things paid for with money taken from the haves. As far as I'm concerned, that's unconstitutional.

I believe that if the federal government was reduced to the roles of defense, and the courts, and the State government's were reduced to police, education, roads & courts, we could probably change the roles of congressmen and senators into part time honorary and unpaid civil servants.

The role of our government as envisioned by our founding fathers is to protect individual rights, pure & simple. Everything else stems from that. We delegate certain of our individual rights to our government such as our right to self defense, for which we need the police & the military. When you get down to it, our laws should be pretty simple. If I'm hungry, that doesn't give me the right to steal my neighbor's food. If I don't have that right, how can I possibly delegate it to government?

We need to find a way to attract the smartest and most honorable people into government service, instead of the sleaziest and the most egocentric. We need to update all the rules.

By: whiskey -bravo

whiskey -bravo — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:27:15 +0000

So it's "joker care " is it . Maybe the seemingly un-informed author of that tag , oughta try actually READING his next pay-check , that is , you know , looking a little deeper than Net Pay . PEOPLE PAY FOR MEDICARE , and they pay for Social Security , and uh , there are no "K " s in the spelling .
They are " entitlements " as you call them , and they are paid for , the reasoning behind their creation , is that at thew age of 62 , when many mkay be to old too continue working , or have had jobs that didn't pay well enough to have a 401 k nor offered it , can expect to live with dignity , and have reasonable healthcare available to them . You know , people like your Landscapers employees , the people in walmart , those behind the counters at all the places you buy your stuff .
They are in fact "socialistic " systems , and you yourself will eventually use them , unless of course due to your opinionated position , will inturn waive all those benefits when you reach 62 and 66 respectively.
Yea right ! .