Remember How Great California Was? (public school, salaries, linear)

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Whoa, whoa! You don't know what I think; don't put words in my mouth. All I was doing is pointing out that your statement that the poor don't pay taxes was inaccurate. That's all. All you have to do is amend your statement for accuracy, and you're free to continue with your diatribe. Or "theory". Or proposal. Whatever you call it. Carry on.

Whoa, whoa! You clearly are making stuff up again and taking something I said out of context.

The ACTUAL POINT I was making was that certain people are not NET contributors to the tax system, which is true, I never said they don't pay zero taxes in all aspects of their life. But you can't call someone a "tax payer" if their net contribution is negative. That's ridiculous. It's like, are you really paying for dinner if you pay the bill for $50, then run back to mommy and ask her to give you $50 since you're broke now? That's what you're claiming is a 'tax payer', and it's a shoddy definition at best.

Learn to read next time before you comment on something you know little about. Or stick to watching YouTube videos about California and then trying to sound like an expert based off of that video you watched. Carry on.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Whoa, whoa! You clearly are making stuff up again and taking something I said out of context.

The ACTUAL POINT I was making was that certain people are not NET contributors to the tax system, which is true, I never said they don't pay zero taxes in all aspects of their life. But you can't call someone a "tax payer" if their net contribution is negative. That's ridiculous. It's like, are you really paying for dinner if you pay the bill for $50, then run back to mommy and ask her to give you $50 since you're broke now? That's what you're claiming is a 'tax payer', and it's a shoddy definition at best.

Learn to read next time before you comment on something you know little about. Or stick to watching YouTube videos about California and then trying to sound like an expert based off of that video you watched. Carry on.

You said "tax payers" initially, not "net contributors". Like I said, all you have to do is amend your statements. Learn to express yourself accurately; I can read just fine.
I'm glad we straightened that out. So, for further clarification, are you saying that the ill and disabled should have their franchise taken away? How do you figure?

BTW, if you like oligarchies, there's this cool country east of Ukraine and west of Japan that's really into that.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

You said "tax payers" initially, not "net contributors". Like I said, all you have to do is amend your statements. Learn to express yourself accurately; I can read just fine.
I'm glad we straightened that out. So, for further clarification, are you saying that the ill and disabled should have their franchise taken away? How do you figure?

BTW, if you like oligarchies, there's this cool country east of Ukraine and west of Japan that's really into that.

You don't seem to grasp basic math and think someone who pays $2 in taxes, and takes $5 in benefits is a "tax payer". My definition is correct, yours is some made up leftist/democrat fantasy. Sorry you are not a tax payer if you are a negative contributor (emphasized since you seem to be missing the point over and over again).

As for the ill and disabled, how much do they take from the system compared to the non-working able bodied welfare recipients? Can you quantify that for me? Please do some actual research this time. I'll await your well thought out and fact based reasoning that shows me how much each categories takes.

It's funny that you bring up Russia, they are a country that prefers strong state control over all resources, exactly the system you're arguing for. It's like you couldn't help yourself.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

A year ago you sure whined about it

Nope, I have always been able to afford it and still am.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by nmnita

Oh for heavens sake: when the right women runs for president she will have every opportunity to be elected and probably will be, but so far we haven't seen her. and it bothers me when I think someone would even consider voting for a person based on their gender, race, sexual orientation or religious beliefs.

Unfortunately such are used for and against and usually to avoid discussing actual issues.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by expatCA

A Decent woman.

Not to mention a woman who is not the most corrupt politician in the past century. And a woman with a personality not reminiscent of cold dead fish at a fishmarket.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by nmnita

it bothers me when I think someone would even consider voting for a person based on their gender, race, sexual orientation or religious beliefs.

Then, there's Chris Rock's comment:

"I did NOT vote for Obama because HE IS Black. I Voted for Obama because I AM Black."

There's a woman in an office with a poster that says "I have a uterus and I vote." Her view was much the same as Chris Rock's.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

You don't seem to grasp basic math and think someone who pays $2 in taxes, and takes $5 in benefits is a "tax payer". My definition is correct, yours is some made up leftist/democrat fantasy. Sorry you are not a tax payer if you are a negative contributor (emphasized since you seem to be missing the point over and over again).

As for the ill and disabled, how much do they take from the system compared to the non-working able bodied welfare recipients? Can you quantify that for me? Please do some actual research this time. I'll await your well thought out and fact based reasoning that shows me how much each categories takes.

It's funny that you bring up Russia, they are a country that prefers strong state control over all resources, exactly the system you're arguing for. It's like you couldn't help yourself.

News flash: anyone who pays taxes is a tax payer. We're all tax payers, and one way or another, we're all tax benefit consumers, too.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

News flash: anyone who pays taxes is a tax payer.

No you're not. If you take more than you put back in, you're a taker not a payer. This is literally 1st grade arithmetic.

You can tell yourself that you "pay" all day long, but when that negative numbers shows up to your name in some database, the truth is you aren't paying anything at all.

According to your definition, some illegal alien can buy a pack of gum, all of a sudden they are a "tax payer" even if they received $20,000 in medical benefits and education. That's what you're calling a "payer".

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

No you're not. If you take more than you put back in, you're a taker not a payer. This is literally 1st grade arithmetic.

You can tell yourself that you "pay" all day long, but when that negative numbers shows up to your name in some database, the truth is you aren't paying anything at all.

According to your definition, some illegal alien can buy a pack of gum, all of a sudden they are a "tax payer" even if they received $20,000 in medical benefits and education. That's what you're calling a "payer".

Sure you do; you pay every time you're at the cash register. If you weren't a tax payer, paying into the system, you wouldn't be charged tax with your purchases. It has nothing to do with whether you consume more benefits than the money you contribute. You're still paying a tax.