Debates
25 Aug 21
There are some here who are for producers paying taxes (Fair Share!,) , which money finds its way to non-producers. Please enjoy and comment on this,
A grocery store owner is told by the Govt to skip paying tax, but instead take that money to his back door and give it to Joey, a non-producer, standing in the alley. He does, and returns to his check-out line. Joey forthwith comes in the front door, with the said money, and buys several hundred dollars in groceries. Pays at the check-out line with the money and leaves with his groceries. Please grasp this concept, grasp what just happened.
This of course mirrors the workings of our society.
Any comments, from facetious to serious are welcome.
25 Aug 21
@AverageJoe1
Yes, this is a real brain teaser !!
I'll hazard a guess.
Are you the grocery store owner ?? 😛
25 Aug 21
@averagejoe1 saidInteresting how simple it is to tease your brain.
There are some here who are for producers paying taxes (Fair Share!,) , which money finds its way to non-producers. Please enjoy and comment on this,
A grocery store owner is told by the Govt to skip paying tax, but instead take that money to his back door and give it to Joey, a non-producer, standing in the alley. He does, and returns to his check-out line. Jo ...[text shortened]... course mirrors the workings of our society.
Any comments, from facetious to serious are welcome.
25 Aug 21
@averagejoe1 saidFirst of all, it's funny that all your examples involve a poor little small business owner, to illustrate how the bad, mean socialists' higher taxes would drive them out of business.
There are some here who are for producers paying taxes (Fair Share!,) , which money finds its way to non-producers. Please enjoy and comment on this,
A grocery store owner is told by the Govt to skip paying tax, but instead take that money to his back door and give it to Joey, a non-producer, standing in the alley. He does, and returns to his check-out line. Jo ...[text shortened]... course mirrors the workings of our society.
Any comments, from facetious to serious are welcome.
Secondly, what are you trying to communicate here? That we shouldn't pay taxes? That we all should just give to charity (mandated by the government from your dumb example) and never send money to the government? That each community would just be responsible of every expenditure simply through the charity of the well-off?
"Please grasp this concept, grasp what just happened."
A store owner gave someone unfortunate some charity. That's all it happened. What do you mean to argue?
"This of course mirrors the workings of our society."
What, that sometimes, some charitable people give to charity? Yes that's true, i guess. Elaborate.
25 Aug 21
@averagejoe1 saidYou’ve actually ( in spite of your obvious stupidity ) explained how paying benefits to poor people rather than leaving it in the grasping mitts of the mega rich is supportive of the localised economy and generates local businesses and jobs 👍
There are some here who are for producers paying taxes (Fair Share!,) , which money finds its way to non-producers. Please enjoy and comment on this,
A grocery store owner is told by the Govt to skip paying tax, but instead take that money to his back door and give it to Joey, a non-producer, standing in the alley. He does, and returns to his check-out line. Jo ...[text shortened]... course mirrors the workings of our society.
Any comments, from facetious to serious are welcome.
25 Aug 21
@kevcvs57 saidi think he is trying to argue the dumb republican talking point that taxes should be lower and we should just hope the charity of people carries the poor
You’ve actually ( in spite of your obvious stupidity ) explained how paying benefits to poor people rather than leaving it in the grasping mitts of the mega rich is supportive of the localised economy and generates local businesses and jobs 👍
@Zahlanz
All of you missed it. A business, poor or rich (y'all sure are hung up on the fact that some have more money than others, what is that all about, anyway?) Anyway, the business's taxes are used by folks who don't earn it, to come into its store and use that SAME money to pick up goods from the store. So the business gave them money, and since that same money came back to them, the business GAVE them the goods out of the store. That is the crux that a martian simply would not find logical.
You speak of charity, so I guess one could argue that the giving of store goods to the loser is, in effect, charity. But all you are doing, in perfect liberal-eze, is segueing, shifting the point of the post over to charity. But what it is about, is the first paragraph above. The ludicrous process of giving the money to someone who is an able-bodied loser(not a person in need) who then uses it to take your goods. He should not be given the money.
Oh well, a shot at entertainment.
Do y'all know that your Dear Leaders are using the word "Houseless" now, a NEW word!!!! And we haven't even seen your new definition of Stranded yet!!!!
@averagejoe1 said"All of you missed it."
@Zahlanz
All of you missed it. A business, poor or rich (y'all sure are hung up on the fact that some have more money than others, what is that all about, anyway?) Anyway, the business's taxes are used by folks who don't earn it, to come into its store and use that SAME money to pick up goods from the store. So the business gave them money, and since that same money c ...[text shortened]... d "Houseless" now, a NEW word!!!! And we haven't even seen your new definition of Stranded yet!!!!
explain it like you aren't drunk next time.
"Anyway, the business's taxes are used by folks who don't earn it, to come into its store and use that SAME money to pick up goods from the store."
Wrong, the business' taxes are used by everyone. From those that make a too low minimum wage, to the business itself. That business enjoys police patrols and fire department coverage, does it not? It enjoys driving on roads and bridges, does it not?
"So the business gave them money, and since that same money came back to them, the business GAVE them the goods out of the store. That is the crux that a martian simply would not find logical."
And here comes into play the fact that you simply don't understand how economy works because you simply eat up fox news propaganda or whatever conservative think tank you listen to.
For you, money just magically appear and so do jobs. The lower classes should be grateful for those magically appearing jobs and the billionaires should be thanked for using their magic to conjure those jobs.
What your example actually reflects is that money in the hands of the poor translates into wealth for everyone. That shop owner paid taxes, part of which end up in the pockets of a poor person. That poor person now has money to shop in that person's shop. The money gets put back into circulation. That money is better used than it would have been if it stayed in the pockets of a billionaire. But you don't mention billionaires, do you? You mention little shop owners to appeal to sentiment, even though we time and again argue for taxes on walmart, not the shop around the corner. The shop around the corner, because of higher taxes on the billionaire, would get tax cuts to actually help it grow and maybe stay alive and be competitive at least somewhat with Walmart.
"You speak of charity, so I guess one could argue that the giving of store goods to the loser is, in effect, charity"
First of all, fuk you again for calling poor people losers. Again.
It obviously has no effect on you because you're a turd of a person who lacks any empathy but i guess i get some catharsis out of it.
Taxes are used for the benefit of all. Some are used to help the most unfortunate human beings, those that didn't have the fortune of being born into a wealthy family or go to a good school or a million other reasons. We have the power to have everyone in the world live decent lives but instead we allow lex luthor lookaliks like bezos to amass billions of dollars. While his workers are worked to death because your society decided that keeping the workforce poor and desperate makes for good profits.
"shifting the point of the post over to charity"
Hah, i was being charitable (pun intended). The only way your dumbass word soup made any sense was if you wanted to present the conservative talking point "charity would help people better than government redistributing wealth would". Which itself is dumb but somehow less so than your original post.
"Do y'all know that your Dear Leaders are using the word "Houseless" now, a NEW word!!!! And we haven't even seen your new definition of Stranded yet!!!!"
No idea what you babble about. Am I makin fun of a senile person? It would be sad if you were simply some senile senior in a retiring home someplace just passing the time at a computer.
The only reason I am calling you a disgusting human being is that i still consider you to be sane. Evil and stupid, yes, but sane. If you're senile, then I am truly sorry.
@zahlanzi saidIt is a given that a portion of his tax goes to roads, fire department,
"All of you missed it."
explain it like you aren't drunk next time.
"Anyway, the business's taxes are used by folks who don't earn it, to come into its store and use that SAME money to pick up goods from the store."
Wrong, the business' taxes are used by everyone. From those that make a too low minimum wage, to the business itself. That business enjoys police patrols a ...[text shortened]... ll consider you to be sane. Evil and stupid, yes, but sane. If you're senile, then I am truly sorry.
military, and the FDA, and to welfare for poor people. Note my sentence above.."ludicrous process of giving money to someone who is an able-bodied loser (not a person in need)". I write of non-producers, not poor people in need. So your comments hereinabove about the poor do not relate to this scenario, sorry. So throw all those comments out. And I often say we should support the 40M poor. Are we cool with that? This is about the portion of taxes that gets sucked up by losers. To hear you tell it, there is no such thing as a loser? So what shall we call Joey who is hangin in the alley? Not working. Ending up with stock from the grocery store.
Yes, I use a simple store in the analogy, but it would apply to all taxpayers...the store, the owner of the store, etc. So,, anyway, if you reread the above without doing liberal-eze by dragging in poor people, and charity, and a treatise on how the economy works...... maybe you will get it. Lets us call it just a bad way to run an economy. Everyone should pay taxes for roads, fire trucks, FDA and FBI, and a few other agencies, and for desperate poor people. But none of it should go to a loser who will.....how do you say,,,spend it back into the system? Like Joey did? Why, that grocer is still scratching his head. Frankly, so am I.
Do you really think YOU make sense?
@zahlanzi saidMy elaboration is that you elaborate about charity, and about poor, and about unfortunate . All different concepts, neither of which is even a small part of my post. I wrote about able bodied people getting money that they do not earn. I write about the source of the money, and the resulting head-scratching of the grocery store guy. He is thinking...'what just happened here'.
First of all, it's funny that all your examples involve a poor little small business owner, to illustrate how the bad, mean socialists' higher taxes would drive them out of business.
Secondly, what are you trying to communicate here? That we shouldn't pay taxes? That we all should just give to charity (mandated by the government from your dumb example) and never send mon ...[text shortened]...
What, that sometimes, some charitable people give to charity? Yes that's true, i guess. Elaborate.
A great example of liberals not 'getting' an issue. If it makes them Angry, they just change it, add to it, writing the first things that come into their minds, like how mean I am, or whatever. Hell, the post is a simple scenario, why get personal? Just laying it out there, interesting, I think. Mean ole me.
@averagejoe1 saidye ye ye, the old republican talking point of welfare queens, of people living large on food stamps. Because it's just so damn appealing to barely scrape by that everyone will do it.
My elaboration is that you elaborate about charity, and about poor, and about unfortunate . All different concepts, neither of which is even a small part of my post. I wrote about able bodied people getting money that they do not earn. I write about the source of the money, and the resulting head-scratching of the grocery store guy. He is thinking...'what just happene ...[text shortened]... s a simple scenario, why get personal? Just laying it out there, interesting, I think. Mean ole me.
The majority of people want to work. A good society makes it that they don't absolutely have to. That rather than work for pennies for walmart or amazon they just stay at home. Until Amazon feels compelled to raise their wages and improve their work conditions or go bust. You can't comprehend that because you have the empathy of shark (as well as the intelligence of one). You just can't stand someone doing nothing, no matter the reason.
Even in your own damn example, the fictional Joey is just seen behind that grocery store. Maybe Joey has a chronic condition. Maybe Joey just got laid off because some corporation moved a factory in vietnam. Maybe Joey just doesn't want to pee in a botyle at amazon.
Lots of possible maybes. But no. Joey is definitely a loser. Because you saw him in your mind for 5 minutes in behind that store and you never imagined that there could be more to joey.
25 Aug 21
@zahlanzi saidNo, not really a lot of possibilities, my post said it all. Nothing to add. But you are adding a lot. Amazon? Food stamps? And since I said he was a (typical) loser, no definition is needed, (it is a universal term for wastrels, bums, guys who don't care, no gumption, such as that), then that is all I said, I said nothing about his health . In this post, Joey is not a laid-off worker. I am speaking of a Joey who is a loser. He Doesn't work. Why bring work into the scenario, which is just confusing the readers of AvJoe's post?
ye ye ye, the old republican talking point of welfare queens, of people living large on food stamps. Because it's just so damn appealing to barely scrape by that everyone will do it.
The majority of people want to work. A good society makes it that they don't absolutely have to. That rather than work for pennies for walmart or amazon they just stay at home. Until Amazon ...[text shortened]... our mind for 5 minutes in behind that store and you never imagined that there could be more to joey.
No need to get angry, I did think it was an interesting take on the flow of money.
25 Aug 21
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidA grocery store owner is told by the Govt to skip paying tax,
There are some here who are for producers paying taxes (Fair Share!,) , which money finds its way to non-producers. Please enjoy and comment on this,
A grocery store owner is told by the Govt to skip paying tax, but instead take that money to his back door and give it to Joey, a non-producer, standing in the alley. He does, and returns to his check-out line. Jo ...[text shortened]... course mirrors the workings of our society.
Any comments, from facetious to serious are welcome.
The government is not going to tell anyone to "skip paying taxes" silly, and frankly I don't mind if some of my tax $$ go to the underprivileged, better public education, conversion to clean renewable energy technology, repairing our roads, bridges, or lowering the skyrocketing cost of higher education. What I do mind is the conservative lunacy of more tax loopholes and corporate welfare goodies for the 1%
25 Aug 21
@mchill saidSkip means to pay his tax, rather than by going thru a govt agency, directly to a person on the receiving end. That’s all. Sorry that it was really confusing.
A grocery store owner is told by the Govt to skip paying tax,
The government is not going to tell anyone to "skip paying taxes" silly, and frankly I don't mind if some of my tax $$ go to the underprivileged, better public education, conversion to clean renewable energy technology, repairing our roads, bridges, or lowering the skyrocketing cost of higher education. What I do mind is the conservative lunacy of more tax loopholes and corporate welfare goodies for the 1%
25 Aug 21
1 edit
@mchill saidI agree with all that you say, the proper use of tax money. Good stuff for another thread. This one has nothing to do with what you are saying, however. Zahlanzi wrote extraneously himself, but he seems angry, I appreciate your post.
A grocery store owner is told by the Govt to skip paying tax,
The government is not going to tell anyone to "skip paying taxes" silly, and frankly I don't mind if some of my tax $$ go to the underprivileged, better public education, conversion to clean renewable energy technology, repairing our roads, bridges, or lowering the skyrocketing cost of higher education. What I do mind is the conservative lunacy of more tax loopholes and corporate welfare goodies for the 1%