This is a strawman. This isn't about paying for services anymore.  Having my labor taxes and that money simply given to someone else who is doing nothing in return is not a service.

This has got to be the first time someone has asserted that doctors and lawyers don't make a lot of money.

Next time on looks at a county map of the US and sees red and blue counties, I think they'll conclude that your assertion is utter nonense.  Rural voters are overwhelmingly conservative and overwhelmingly NOT business men. 

If you want to speak broadly:

If only people who pay federal income taxes were allowed to vote, Republicans would have won every election since 1972.

Or more broadly, people who produce something tend to be conservatives, people who don't produce things tend to be liberal.

if all doctors are liberals (I don't know what that has to do with anything, but that is the claim I am hearding) who do it just to help people, how come they charge us so damn much for their services?

I can barely bring myself to charge people for fixing their computer (my job) and often give them freebies, I couldn't bring myself to charge people for fixing their health. (and I am a conservative...)

That one always bothered me... not only are they lying about the facts claiming that everyone in the military is poor. The whole notion that the military is only there to be an escape for poor people who do NOT intend to fight for their country irks me.

because it insinuates that all militarymen are dishonest people defrauding the government and the populace. Soldiers are getting paid and taken care of in exchage for the promise protecting our freedoms and life at the risk of their lives. If some soldiers are just drawing a paycheck and will split at the first sign of trouble then it is better to not have them at all in the military (since they might disappear when depended on).

This is doubly insulting because of how many people are in the military exactly because they want to protect our lives and freedom, and how they risk their lives and sometimes die for those altruistic notions. Only to be made into a tool against everything they beleive in.

I tend to stay out of these arguments because I've been born and raised in Canada, so my political views are naturally more left than an average American's (our Conservative party is as right wing as your Democrat party).

This (admittedly broad) statement though is rather confusing. It seems that if this were read in your usual tone, it would be degrading to people who don't produce things. I'd just like to clarify: are you insinuating that only people who produce things can be considered successful, or valuable (or, for that matter, patriotic)? Or are you simply saying that people who are involved in goods production are conservative, and people who are involved in services are liberal?

produce doesn't necessarily means manufacture...

He is saying that liberals tend to be unemployed. People who work for a living, tend to be conservative.

Actually, I think you may have meant that the unemployed tend to be liberals as I don't think most liberals are unemployed.

Point (you mean HE meant not YOU meant). Although it wouldn't surprise me if most liberals were unemployed. (not poor! just unemployed)

With the major exception being... some methods of employment that still leave you producing nothing (many "actors" and "musicians" who have people to write their lines and edit their footage spring to mind). They also tend to be liberal (although technically employed)...

And I guess a business owner is not really employed anymore unless he/she is the CEO as well...

Fair enough, perhaps I should have said "I think you may have meant that he meant..."

You are right in that you can be employed and be at a net unproductive, and that happens when one consumes more than they produce, and are as a result a drain.  The only times this to me is justified is if this consumption of resources helps the person become even more productive later on, but this it often doesn't work out this way.  I'll admit, someone with a liberal is more likely to fall into this category than a conservative.

Hello:

First:  Can we agree that dodging your taxes in unpatriotic?  If we can agree then the opposite should be logically true...that to pay "your fair share" (whatever this actually means...more on this later) is at least your duty?  To do ones duty for country and countrymen is surley patriotic. 

As for what our fair share is...I think most of us will agree that they tax system is a mess.  For example...someone wants to buy something at the store where I work...first that person was taxed when they earned their money (say payroll)...then it is taxed again (sales tax) as my boss makes it.  Then it is taxed before I earn it in a paycheck (business income) it is taxed again as I earn it (payroll) and then again as I spend it (sales tax). 

Finally the notion of trickle down economics is something like if you let the rich keep their money they will have more to invest and do smart rich people things with it.  Recently we have had the notion of the stimlus package where in order to stimulate the economy they were forced to give us money back...which is just one way of looking at it, but it is more or less correct. I still think a flat tax is the best idea.  Every dollar you make you owe X, Y, Z to the local, state and Federal govts.  If you make 20,000 then you have to pay the tax on each of your 20,000 dollars.  If you make a billion...you pay it on each dollar of the billion.  maybe you get to keep 85% of your dollar...maybe its 75%...I am not sure how the tax amount would work out, however this would have stopped at whatever level filled the coffers or became unreasonable. I truly do not think this would hurt most people's motovation to make money.

Gosh, anyone actually read that?

Rev Phil

Avoidance is not.  Evasion is.  WHat is dodging?

i think dodging means evasion. except for when it means avoidance

I love definite maybes.

Hello:

Yes you understand, well mostly.  Dodging I suppose would be both...and I see the difference between them as semantics. However I can understand how you might hold the position they are not the same thing.  I agree that it sucks that some people more benifits than they pay in taxes while the rest of us just get suck with National Defence, Roads, Schools, Police, Those folks that might swing by and put out a fire for you...you know all that useless crap. 

While I do not agree with how...I dunno maybe a quarter to a third to maybe half of the tax dollars are spent, however I also have yet to run for any public office or start and grassroots campaigns and so I still feel oblidiged to pay taxes...though really they just take taxes and the two of us settle up at the end of the year. 

So yeah, how about a nice flat tax or maybe just a sales tax every time you buy or sell anything. 

I hope this helps

Rev Phil

tax avoidance: filing 1040 form instead of 1040EZ to properly report your dependents and get all the benefits that you deserve as a single mom with 4 children and no child support payments while working full time and living in poverty.

tax avoidance: reinvesting a large sum of your income for the year in purchasing a new factory (and hiring stuff for it) / renewable energy contract / or reinvesting in research with a tax incentive meant to spur investment in very specific things. Making it into a tax deductible expense that would make you more money in the future. (instead of just giving that money as dividends to the stock holders).

tax evasion: Lying about your income to pay less taxes.

tax evasion: Lying about the amount of employees you have and paying them under the table in cash to pay less taxes.

The two are completely different. You just "feel" they are the same because you assume that:

1. They only apply to rich people

2. The rich always deserve to pay more, and should not be allowed to take advantage of tax deduction that are meant to encourage them to do the right thing (such as reinvesting in specific things).

Both assumptions are dread wrong. There is nothing wrong with avoidance, in fact the whole POINT is to comply with federal incentives, when obama and mccain discussed tax incentives for research of renewable energy, they were discussing the creation of tax avoidance plans for money invested into those fields.

I come from Mississippi, the most charitable state in the nation (I'm serious, go look it up) and so I really don't see why the government has the audacity to try to tell ME that I don't do enough to help the less fortunate.  I live in a suburb of Jackson (the capital, and ghetto city) and seem to be constantly doing can drives, food drives, money drives, weekends helping the less fortunate, and seemingly anything else, all for the service of the less fortunate.  I genuinely like it, and really want to know why a man who has probably never spent time helping the less fortunate unless it was somehow linked to his political schemes.  Biden is a crook.  Obama, on the other hand, is someone that I can at least agree with on some issues.  I feel that we are about to go through some very trying times, and hope that he is prepared to lead us through them.