MSNBC blames the IRS Scandal on SCOTUS

Originally posted by Eladar
When you take money away from a person for simply making money you are by definition punishing that person.

Just look at the sports world. What is a very common way of punishing athletes? They get fined. The player has his money taken away.

Taxing income is not different than taking money away for a person for any other reason. It is still a punishment. It is still a fine.

Gee I got "punished" at Dunkin Donuts this morning; they took my money away just because I wanted a cup of coffee!

Taxes pay for things we get.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Gee I got "punished" at Dunkin Donuts this morning; they took my money away just because I wanted a cup of coffee!

Taxes pay for things we get.

You didn't get fined. No one forced you to buy the coffee. You chose to buy it. The fact that you can't see the difference goes a long way in explaining why you are a liberal.

Originally posted by Eladar
You didn't get fined. No one forced you to buy the coffee. You chose to buy it. The fact that you can't see the difference goes a long way in explaining why you are a liberal.

No one forces you to make more money.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
No one forces you to make more money.

Once again liberal logic gone wild.

Originally posted by Eladar
Once again liberal logic gone wild.

You need to be really careful. You're on the verge of defining conservatives into nonexistence.

Originally posted by Eladar
You didn't get fined. No one forced you to buy the coffee. You chose to buy it. The fact that you can't see the difference goes a long way in explaining why you are a liberal.

No one forces you to live in this country either. By living here you receive certain benefits and you are expected to pay for them through taxation. Same as my delicious raspberry coffee from DD.

Originally posted by Eladar
Perhaps it was because I was making so little that I was also receiving earned income credit.

That would not be reflected in your take home pay.

Again, your story bulls***.

Originally posted by sh76
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/13/chris-hayes-explains-why-citizens-united-is-the-real-scandal-behind-the-irs-scandal/

[quote]“Citizen’s United said essentially any organization of any kind can spend money out of its general treasury to run political ads,” Hayes said, “and that decision brought about a pivotal moment for politics and taxes and campaign s ...[text shortened]... ot expecting them to suddenly demand Obama's head, but this extenuation is downright comical.

I do not see how it is comical to say that the IRS actions were inexcusable while also pointing to the even bigger scandal of massive abuse of 501(c)(4) and how Citizens United was a key.

Originally posted by moon1969
I do not see how it is comical to say that the IRS actions were inexcusable while also pointing to the even bigger scandal of massive abuse of 501(c)(4) and how Citizens United was a key.

I was going to bring up the same thing with a different link only to find out you beat me to it.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/14/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20130514

Originally posted by no1marauder
Gee I got "punished" at Dunkin Donuts this morning; they took my money away just because I wanted a cup of coffee!

Taxes pay for things we get.

Taxes also pay for what other people get.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No one forces you to live in this country either. By living here you receive certain benefits and you are expected to pay for them through taxation. Same as my delicious raspberry coffee from DD.

Taxation and benefits are not equally distributed.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Reading is really hard for some people.

We'll remember that whenever writing a subtlety to you.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You regard it as a "strange argument" that those who get the most benefit from something should pay the most for it?

It is strange to think that income determines "how much benefit" people get from taxation. That might be the case for government workers, but the great majority of us enjoy as little "support" from the government as possible.

Originally posted by sh76
They're more frequent and have less space between than you'd think. Where I live, income-based government benefits (Medicaid, food stamps, Section 8, WIC, etc.) for a large family can be worth $75,000/year or more. I've had many clients who could afford a $2,000 legal fee to set up an insurance trust, but could not afford to get a salaried job.

That has always been the case with welfare payments. The problem is that whatever the level of subsidies, for the recipient, a paying job is seen only in its difference between welfare and work. If he receives benefits of $75K, using your number, he tends to view a $100k job as working 40 hours a week for just $25k. (Use whatever you think the real numbers are, but the relationship is the same)

That's a bad deal, when doing nothing he can sit home listen to MSNBC, and QVC, and not miss an episode of Idol. If he works at all, it will be "under the table" so he doesn't lose whatever benefits he has accrued.

Originally posted by normbenign
It is strange to think that income determines "how much benefit" people get from taxation. That might be the case for government workers, but the great majority of us enjoy as little "support" from the government as possible.

Baloney. Your contracts get enforced, you travel on public roads, police protect your property, etc. etc. etc. etc. Those who earn the greatest benefit from the economic and legal system imposed by society should pay the greatest amount in maintaining it.