Do ANY of you out there really believe in or trust this new prez?
This CLOWN in 6 months has already done this for OUR future:
-EVERY working taxpayer now has an extra $6-7000 to pay back tot the gov't as part of the stimulus scam
-GM had their main CEO FIRED by the gov't and "the ONE" (which is unconstitutional)
-GM went bankrupt and was BOUGHT then scolded and shamed by the UAW and our Gov't (unconstitutional)
-Hate Crimes bills are being rushed thru as we speak (pass thru the House, the Senate votes on it next) which WILL void ALL 1st Amend Rights (Freedom of Speech) if it passes!
-Socialized Gov't ran health care is in the works (which means we have to pay for more SCUM who don't pay for their own problems)
I could go on for a MONTH! This new Snake Oil Salesman in Obama really is turning this nation upside down. Meanwhile, you and I as hard working taxpayers are getting bent over and screwed royally! Are you proud of this???
[ron h] Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:56:39 PM
Walk away...without trust, there's nothing. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by BLOOD SUCKER Esquire from Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:12:37 PM)
BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote:
Here is a question that I would like to pose to all of you. You catch your partner cheating. It may be at a romantic dinner, a picture film, or another setting. A close friend of confidant informs you of this situation, or perhaps, you catch them in the act yourself. Whom do you take out your anger on? Your partner.....or the other person? In regards to cheating on a partner, what are your views, what would be your reason for staying, leaving, forgiving, understanding.....or even resorting to rage and violence? Which position would you take, and why? Just a simple, but yet complex, case study on the human condition! Thank you. (a.Hammerstein)
[BLOOD SUCKER Esquire] Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:12:37 PM
Here is a question that I would like to pose to all of you. You catch your partner cheating. It may be at a romantic dinner, a picture film, or another setting. A close friend of confidant informs you of this situation, or perhaps, you catch them in the act yourself. Whom do you take out your anger on? Your partner.....or the other person? In regards to cheating on a partner, what are your views, what would be your reason for staying, leaving, forgiving, understanding.....or even resorting to rage and violence? Which position would you take, and why? Just a simple, but yet complex, case study on the human condition! Thank you. (a.Hammerstein)
[Deep Freeze] Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:49:18 AM
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:44:41 AM)
_strat_ wrote:
I see. So youre like Robbie Williams then... You come undone.
Deep Freeze wrote:
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am UNDONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Bad speller? I protest in the strongest possible terms! My spelling is as perfect as my overall mastery of a West-Germanic language, commonly known as English. Which means that by insulting me, you, good sir, are indeed a serf! A plague upon thee, and may your head grow as devoid of hair as my spelling is devoid of mistakes.
A..uh... A POOR GRADE upon you, bad speller!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
A baldness upon you, hair owner!
Deep Freeze wrote:
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No, no!! How about this....
A TAX upon you, wage earner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
A pox? Come on... I know you can do better than that and serf is sooo 200 years ago... You should modernise. Like... A swine flu upon you, immigrant!
Deep Freeze wrote:
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A pox upon thee, serf!!! HAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Well, thats what happens when the political scene is dominated by old people, who know how to calculate loans...
Deep Freeze wrote:
No! They wouldn't! AND.... that is just the way it is ( *throwing my hands up..**) HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Thats true, I guess. I just did the maths for us - lets say that GMI is 300€/month, and with a population of 2 million, that means 600 million € per month... Or per year, it means more than 3/4 of the entire budget.
IDK, I still think it would be possible. Those loopholes can be closed, but considering that we would have to tax the rich... Well, it would be a political decision, and since politicians themselves are rich, I dont think they will decide for it.
ronhartsell wrote:
axing the rich is getting harde and harde to do...IRS and government leave a million loop holes for the wealthiest to protect their money...not including offshore accts...it all sounds great in theory, but it practicality, it won't work for lack of funds...
_strat_ wrote:
I agree, and thats why I like the idea of GMI. Now, the minimum wage here is a joke too. 500€ total, which means that the worker gets about 300€. Which if you are single and have the good fortune of owning your home, is enough for a basic survival. If you have kids, and a rent/loan payments to pay, its imposibble to get through the month without welfare.
Now, GMI would be set somewhere between 200€ and 400€, and it doesnt matter if you have any other source of income. So, that means that for someone with a minimum wage, the overall income would double. If you have kids, they would get GMI too, which means even more money. Of course, I dont doubt that GMI wont happen anytime soon. So far there were a few articles in the press, and a TV debate about it, but nothing more serious.
As for funding, taxing the rich would be enough, imo. And a bit more responsibility in managing the budget (which usualy means less toys for the military, and Im always in favour of that), and I think we could pull it off.
ronhartsell wrote:
My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off?? Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,,
_strat_ wrote:
Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic...
GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money.
Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).
On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.
[_strat_] Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:44:41 AM
I see. So youre like Robbie Williams then... You come undone. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:34:21 AM)
Deep Freeze wrote:
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am UNDONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Bad speller? I protest in the strongest possible terms! My spelling is as perfect as my overall mastery of a West-Germanic language, commonly known as English. Which means that by insulting me, you, good sir, are indeed a serf! A plague upon thee, and may your head grow as devoid of hair as my spelling is devoid of mistakes.
A..uh... A POOR GRADE upon you, bad speller!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
A baldness upon you, hair owner!
Deep Freeze wrote:
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No, no!! How about this....
A TAX upon you, wage earner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
A pox? Come on... I know you can do better than that and serf is sooo 200 years ago... You should modernise. Like... A swine flu upon you, immigrant!
Deep Freeze wrote:
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A pox upon thee, serf!!! HAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Well, thats what happens when the political scene is dominated by old people, who know how to calculate loans...
Deep Freeze wrote:
No! They wouldn't! AND.... that is just the way it is ( *throwing my hands up..**) HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Thats true, I guess. I just did the maths for us - lets say that GMI is 300€/month, and with a population of 2 million, that means 600 million € per month... Or per year, it means more than 3/4 of the entire budget.
IDK, I still think it would be possible. Those loopholes can be closed, but considering that we would have to tax the rich... Well, it would be a political decision, and since politicians themselves are rich, I dont think they will decide for it.
ronhartsell wrote:
axing the rich is getting harde and harde to do...IRS and government leave a million loop holes for the wealthiest to protect their money...not including offshore accts...it all sounds great in theory, but it practicality, it won't work for lack of funds...
_strat_ wrote:
I agree, and thats why I like the idea of GMI. Now, the minimum wage here is a joke too. 500€ total, which means that the worker gets about 300€. Which if you are single and have the good fortune of owning your home, is enough for a basic survival. If you have kids, and a rent/loan payments to pay, its imposibble to get through the month without welfare.
Now, GMI would be set somewhere between 200€ and 400€, and it doesnt matter if you have any other source of income. So, that means that for someone with a minimum wage, the overall income would double. If you have kids, they would get GMI too, which means even more money. Of course, I dont doubt that GMI wont happen anytime soon. So far there were a few articles in the press, and a TV debate about it, but nothing more serious.
As for funding, taxing the rich would be enough, imo. And a bit more responsibility in managing the budget (which usualy means less toys for the military, and Im always in favour of that), and I think we could pull it off.
ronhartsell wrote:
My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off?? Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,,
_strat_ wrote:
Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic...
GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money.
Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).
On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.
[Deep Freeze] Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:34:21 AM
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am UNDONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:29:02 AM)
_strat_ wrote:
Bad speller? I protest in the strongest possible terms! My spelling is as perfect as my overall mastery of a West-Germanic language, commonly known as English. Which means that by insulting me, you, good sir, are indeed a serf! A plague upon thee, and may your head grow as devoid of hair as my spelling is devoid of mistakes.
A..uh... A POOR GRADE upon you, bad speller!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
A baldness upon you, hair owner!
Deep Freeze wrote:
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No, no!! How about this....
A TAX upon you, wage earner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
A pox? Come on... I know you can do better than that and serf is sooo 200 years ago... You should modernise. Like... A swine flu upon you, immigrant!
Deep Freeze wrote:
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A pox upon thee, serf!!! HAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Well, thats what happens when the political scene is dominated by old people, who know how to calculate loans...
Deep Freeze wrote:
No! They wouldn't! AND.... that is just the way it is ( *throwing my hands up..**) HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Thats true, I guess. I just did the maths for us - lets say that GMI is 300€/month, and with a population of 2 million, that means 600 million € per month... Or per year, it means more than 3/4 of the entire budget.
IDK, I still think it would be possible. Those loopholes can be closed, but considering that we would have to tax the rich... Well, it would be a political decision, and since politicians themselves are rich, I dont think they will decide for it.
ronhartsell wrote:
axing the rich is getting harde and harde to do...IRS and government leave a million loop holes for the wealthiest to protect their money...not including offshore accts...it all sounds great in theory, but it practicality, it won't work for lack of funds...
_strat_ wrote:
I agree, and thats why I like the idea of GMI. Now, the minimum wage here is a joke too. 500€ total, which means that the worker gets about 300€. Which if you are single and have the good fortune of owning your home, is enough for a basic survival. If you have kids, and a rent/loan payments to pay, its imposibble to get through the month without welfare.
Now, GMI would be set somewhere between 200€ and 400€, and it doesnt matter if you have any other source of income. So, that means that for someone with a minimum wage, the overall income would double. If you have kids, they would get GMI too, which means even more money. Of course, I dont doubt that GMI wont happen anytime soon. So far there were a few articles in the press, and a TV debate about it, but nothing more serious.
As for funding, taxing the rich would be enough, imo. And a bit more responsibility in managing the budget (which usualy means less toys for the military, and Im always in favour of that), and I think we could pull it off.
ronhartsell wrote:
My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off?? Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,,
_strat_ wrote:
Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic...
GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money.
Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).
On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.
[_strat_] Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:29:02 AM
Bad speller? I protest in the strongest possible terms! My spelling is as perfect as my overall mastery of a West-Germanic language, commonly known as English. Which means that by insulting me, you, good sir, are indeed a serf! A plague upon thee, and may your head grow as devoid of hair as my spelling is devoid of mistakes.
A..uh... A POOR GRADE upon you, bad speller!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
A baldness upon you, hair owner!
Deep Freeze wrote:
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No, no!! How about this....
A TAX upon you, wage earner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
A pox? Come on... I know you can do better than that and serf is sooo 200 years ago... You should modernise. Like... A swine flu upon you, immigrant!
Deep Freeze wrote:
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A pox upon thee, serf!!! HAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Well, thats what happens when the political scene is dominated by old people, who know how to calculate loans...
Deep Freeze wrote:
No! They wouldn't! AND.... that is just the way it is ( *throwing my hands up..**) HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Thats true, I guess. I just did the maths for us - lets say that GMI is 300€/month, and with a population of 2 million, that means 600 million € per month... Or per year, it means more than 3/4 of the entire budget.
IDK, I still think it would be possible. Those loopholes can be closed, but considering that we would have to tax the rich... Well, it would be a political decision, and since politicians themselves are rich, I dont think they will decide for it.
ronhartsell wrote:
axing the rich is getting harde and harde to do...IRS and government leave a million loop holes for the wealthiest to protect their money...not including offshore accts...it all sounds great in theory, but it practicality, it won't work for lack of funds...
_strat_ wrote:
I agree, and thats why I like the idea of GMI. Now, the minimum wage here is a joke too. 500€ total, which means that the worker gets about 300€. Which if you are single and have the good fortune of owning your home, is enough for a basic survival. If you have kids, and a rent/loan payments to pay, its imposibble to get through the month without welfare.
Now, GMI would be set somewhere between 200€ and 400€, and it doesnt matter if you have any other source of income. So, that means that for someone with a minimum wage, the overall income would double. If you have kids, they would get GMI too, which means even more money. Of course, I dont doubt that GMI wont happen anytime soon. So far there were a few articles in the press, and a TV debate about it, but nothing more serious.
As for funding, taxing the rich would be enough, imo. And a bit more responsibility in managing the budget (which usualy means less toys for the military, and Im always in favour of that), and I think we could pull it off.
ronhartsell wrote:
My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off?? Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,,
_strat_ wrote:
Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic...
GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money.
Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).
On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.
A..uh... A POOR GRADE upon you, bad speller!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:21:18 AM)
_strat_ wrote:
A baldness upon you, hair owner!
Deep Freeze wrote:
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No, no!! How about this....
A TAX upon you, wage earner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
A pox? Come on... I know you can do better than that and serf is sooo 200 years ago... You should modernise. Like... A swine flu upon you, immigrant!
Deep Freeze wrote:
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A pox upon thee, serf!!! HAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Well, thats what happens when the political scene is dominated by old people, who know how to calculate loans...
Deep Freeze wrote:
No! They wouldn't! AND.... that is just the way it is ( *throwing my hands up..**) HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Thats true, I guess. I just did the maths for us - lets say that GMI is 300€/month, and with a population of 2 million, that means 600 million € per month... Or per year, it means more than 3/4 of the entire budget.
IDK, I still think it would be possible. Those loopholes can be closed, but considering that we would have to tax the rich... Well, it would be a political decision, and since politicians themselves are rich, I dont think they will decide for it.
ronhartsell wrote:
axing the rich is getting harde and harde to do...IRS and government leave a million loop holes for the wealthiest to protect their money...not including offshore accts...it all sounds great in theory, but it practicality, it won't work for lack of funds...
_strat_ wrote:
I agree, and thats why I like the idea of GMI. Now, the minimum wage here is a joke too. 500€ total, which means that the worker gets about 300€. Which if you are single and have the good fortune of owning your home, is enough for a basic survival. If you have kids, and a rent/loan payments to pay, its imposibble to get through the month without welfare.
Now, GMI would be set somewhere between 200€ and 400€, and it doesnt matter if you have any other source of income. So, that means that for someone with a minimum wage, the overall income would double. If you have kids, they would get GMI too, which means even more money. Of course, I dont doubt that GMI wont happen anytime soon. So far there were a few articles in the press, and a TV debate about it, but nothing more serious.
As for funding, taxing the rich would be enough, imo. And a bit more responsibility in managing the budget (which usualy means less toys for the military, and Im always in favour of that), and I think we could pull it off.
ronhartsell wrote:
My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off?? Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,,
_strat_ wrote:
Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic...
GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money.
Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).
On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No, no!! How about this....
A TAX upon you, wage earner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
A pox? Come on... I know you can do better than that and serf is sooo 200 years ago... You should modernise. Like... A swine flu upon you, immigrant!
Deep Freeze wrote:
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A pox upon thee, serf!!! HAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Well, thats what happens when the political scene is dominated by old people, who know how to calculate loans...
Deep Freeze wrote:
No! They wouldn't! AND.... that is just the way it is ( *throwing my hands up..**) HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Thats true, I guess. I just did the maths for us - lets say that GMI is 300€/month, and with a population of 2 million, that means 600 million € per month... Or per year, it means more than 3/4 of the entire budget.
IDK, I still think it would be possible. Those loopholes can be closed, but considering that we would have to tax the rich... Well, it would be a political decision, and since politicians themselves are rich, I dont think they will decide for it.
ronhartsell wrote:
axing the rich is getting harde and harde to do...IRS and government leave a million loop holes for the wealthiest to protect their money...not including offshore accts...it all sounds great in theory, but it practicality, it won't work for lack of funds...
_strat_ wrote:
I agree, and thats why I like the idea of GMI. Now, the minimum wage here is a joke too. 500€ total, which means that the worker gets about 300€. Which if you are single and have the good fortune of owning your home, is enough for a basic survival. If you have kids, and a rent/loan payments to pay, its imposibble to get through the month without welfare.
Now, GMI would be set somewhere between 200€ and 400€, and it doesnt matter if you have any other source of income. So, that means that for someone with a minimum wage, the overall income would double. If you have kids, they would get GMI too, which means even more money. Of course, I dont doubt that GMI wont happen anytime soon. So far there were a few articles in the press, and a TV debate about it, but nothing more serious.
As for funding, taxing the rich would be enough, imo. And a bit more responsibility in managing the budget (which usualy means less toys for the military, and Im always in favour of that), and I think we could pull it off.
ronhartsell wrote:
My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off?? Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,,
_strat_ wrote:
Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic...
GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money.
Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).
On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.
[_strat_] Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:20:10 AM
Chocolate ice cream is absolutely the best. If it wasnt for chocolate ice cream, the vannilla hordes, with their strawberry goons, would take over the world. Its because of chocolates victory at Haselnutgrad that you are here. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:17:42 AM)
As for the taxes, the idea is to tax the rich. Minimum wage earners pay a lot less (percentwise, since we still have some sort of a progressive taxation), and that would stay as it is, or (by a separate proposition, to combat the current crisis), wouldnt pay tax at all, just the compulsory contributions for healthcare and pensions.
Now, high earners may move away... On the other hand, they might not. We used to have very high taxes on businesses, and there were few cases of them moving out.
Head banger wrote:
ok, short post
which canadian city was it?
do you tax all the min wage earners, then pay them back with the GMI
if you raise taxes on high earning individuals, probably businesses as well, dont you think it likely that those people move to a new area?
[Deep Freeze] Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:20:09 AM
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No, no!! How about this....
A TAX upon you, wage earner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A pox? Come on... I know you can do better than that and serf is sooo 200 years ago... You should modernise. Like... A swine flu upon you, immigrant!
Deep Freeze wrote:
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A pox upon thee, serf!!! HAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Well, thats what happens when the political scene is dominated by old people, who know how to calculate loans...
Deep Freeze wrote:
No! They wouldn't! AND.... that is just the way it is ( *throwing my hands up..**) HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Thats true, I guess. I just did the maths for us - lets say that GMI is 300€/month, and with a population of 2 million, that means 600 million € per month... Or per year, it means more than 3/4 of the entire budget.
IDK, I still think it would be possible. Those loopholes can be closed, but considering that we would have to tax the rich... Well, it would be a political decision, and since politicians themselves are rich, I dont think they will decide for it.
ronhartsell wrote:
axing the rich is getting harde and harde to do...IRS and government leave a million loop holes for the wealthiest to protect their money...not including offshore accts...it all sounds great in theory, but it practicality, it won't work for lack of funds...
_strat_ wrote:
I agree, and thats why I like the idea of GMI. Now, the minimum wage here is a joke too. 500€ total, which means that the worker gets about 300€. Which if you are single and have the good fortune of owning your home, is enough for a basic survival. If you have kids, and a rent/loan payments to pay, its imposibble to get through the month without welfare.
Now, GMI would be set somewhere between 200€ and 400€, and it doesnt matter if you have any other source of income. So, that means that for someone with a minimum wage, the overall income would double. If you have kids, they would get GMI too, which means even more money. Of course, I dont doubt that GMI wont happen anytime soon. So far there were a few articles in the press, and a TV debate about it, but nothing more serious.
As for funding, taxing the rich would be enough, imo. And a bit more responsibility in managing the budget (which usualy means less toys for the military, and Im always in favour of that), and I think we could pull it off.
ronhartsell wrote:
My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off?? Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,,
_strat_ wrote:
Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic...
GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money.
Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).
On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.
[_strat_] Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:18:04 AM
A pox? Come on... I know you can do better than that and serf is sooo 200 years ago... You should modernise. Like... A swine flu upon you, immigrant! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:10:24 AM)
Deep Freeze wrote:
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A pox upon thee, serf!!! HAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Well, thats what happens when the political scene is dominated by old people, who know how to calculate loans...
Deep Freeze wrote:
No! They wouldn't! AND.... that is just the way it is ( *throwing my hands up..**) HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Thats true, I guess. I just did the maths for us - lets say that GMI is 300€/month, and with a population of 2 million, that means 600 million € per month... Or per year, it means more than 3/4 of the entire budget.
IDK, I still think it would be possible. Those loopholes can be closed, but considering that we would have to tax the rich... Well, it would be a political decision, and since politicians themselves are rich, I dont think they will decide for it.
ronhartsell wrote:
axing the rich is getting harde and harde to do...IRS and government leave a million loop holes for the wealthiest to protect their money...not including offshore accts...it all sounds great in theory, but it practicality, it won't work for lack of funds...
_strat_ wrote:
I agree, and thats why I like the idea of GMI. Now, the minimum wage here is a joke too. 500€ total, which means that the worker gets about 300€. Which if you are single and have the good fortune of owning your home, is enough for a basic survival. If you have kids, and a rent/loan payments to pay, its imposibble to get through the month without welfare.
Now, GMI would be set somewhere between 200€ and 400€, and it doesnt matter if you have any other source of income. So, that means that for someone with a minimum wage, the overall income would double. If you have kids, they would get GMI too, which means even more money. Of course, I dont doubt that GMI wont happen anytime soon. So far there were a few articles in the press, and a TV debate about it, but nothing more serious.
As for funding, taxing the rich would be enough, imo. And a bit more responsibility in managing the budget (which usualy means less toys for the military, and Im always in favour of that), and I think we could pull it off.
ronhartsell wrote:
My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off?? Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,,
_strat_ wrote:
Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic...
GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money.
Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).
On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.
[Head banger] Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:17:42 AM
ah. dunno
btw, chocolate icecream is no good. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:08:23 AM)
As for the taxes, the idea is to tax the rich. Minimum wage earners pay a lot less (percentwise, since we still have some sort of a progressive taxation), and that would stay as it is, or (by a separate proposition, to combat the current crisis), wouldnt pay tax at all, just the compulsory contributions for healthcare and pensions.
Now, high earners may move away... On the other hand, they might not. We used to have very high taxes on businesses, and there were few cases of them moving out.
Head banger wrote:
ok, short post
which canadian city was it?
do you tax all the min wage earners, then pay them back with the GMI
if you raise taxes on high earning individuals, probably businesses as well, dont you think it likely that those people move to a new area?
[Deep Freeze] Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:10:24 AM
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A pox upon thee, serf!!! HAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:09:23 AM)
_strat_ wrote:
Well, thats what happens when the political scene is dominated by old people, who know how to calculate loans...
Deep Freeze wrote:
No! They wouldn't! AND.... that is just the way it is ( *throwing my hands up..**) HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Thats true, I guess. I just did the maths for us - lets say that GMI is 300€/month, and with a population of 2 million, that means 600 million € per month... Or per year, it means more than 3/4 of the entire budget.
IDK, I still think it would be possible. Those loopholes can be closed, but considering that we would have to tax the rich... Well, it would be a political decision, and since politicians themselves are rich, I dont think they will decide for it.
ronhartsell wrote:
axing the rich is getting harde and harde to do...IRS and government leave a million loop holes for the wealthiest to protect their money...not including offshore accts...it all sounds great in theory, but it practicality, it won't work for lack of funds...
_strat_ wrote:
I agree, and thats why I like the idea of GMI. Now, the minimum wage here is a joke too. 500€ total, which means that the worker gets about 300€. Which if you are single and have the good fortune of owning your home, is enough for a basic survival. If you have kids, and a rent/loan payments to pay, its imposibble to get through the month without welfare.
Now, GMI would be set somewhere between 200€ and 400€, and it doesnt matter if you have any other source of income. So, that means that for someone with a minimum wage, the overall income would double. If you have kids, they would get GMI too, which means even more money. Of course, I dont doubt that GMI wont happen anytime soon. So far there were a few articles in the press, and a TV debate about it, but nothing more serious.
As for funding, taxing the rich would be enough, imo. And a bit more responsibility in managing the budget (which usualy means less toys for the military, and Im always in favour of that), and I think we could pull it off.
ronhartsell wrote:
My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off?? Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,,
_strat_ wrote:
Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic...
GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money.
Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).
On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.
[_strat_] Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:09:23 AM
Well, thats what happens when the political scene is dominated by old people, who know how to calculate loans... [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:45:58 AM)
Deep Freeze wrote:
No! They wouldn't! AND.... that is just the way it is ( *throwing my hands up..**) HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Thats true, I guess. I just did the maths for us - lets say that GMI is 300€/month, and with a population of 2 million, that means 600 million € per month... Or per year, it means more than 3/4 of the entire budget.
IDK, I still think it would be possible. Those loopholes can be closed, but considering that we would have to tax the rich... Well, it would be a political decision, and since politicians themselves are rich, I dont think they will decide for it.
ronhartsell wrote:
axing the rich is getting harde and harde to do...IRS and government leave a million loop holes for the wealthiest to protect their money...not including offshore accts...it all sounds great in theory, but it practicality, it won't work for lack of funds...
_strat_ wrote:
I agree, and thats why I like the idea of GMI. Now, the minimum wage here is a joke too. 500€ total, which means that the worker gets about 300€. Which if you are single and have the good fortune of owning your home, is enough for a basic survival. If you have kids, and a rent/loan payments to pay, its imposibble to get through the month without welfare.
Now, GMI would be set somewhere between 200€ and 400€, and it doesnt matter if you have any other source of income. So, that means that for someone with a minimum wage, the overall income would double. If you have kids, they would get GMI too, which means even more money. Of course, I dont doubt that GMI wont happen anytime soon. So far there were a few articles in the press, and a TV debate about it, but nothing more serious.
As for funding, taxing the rich would be enough, imo. And a bit more responsibility in managing the budget (which usualy means less toys for the military, and Im always in favour of that), and I think we could pull it off.
ronhartsell wrote:
My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off?? Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,,
_strat_ wrote:
Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic...
GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money.
Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).
On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.
As for the taxes, the idea is to tax the rich. Minimum wage earners pay a lot less (percentwise, since we still have some sort of a progressive taxation), and that would stay as it is, or (by a separate proposition, to combat the current crisis), wouldnt pay tax at all, just the compulsory contributions for healthcare and pensions.
Now, high earners may move away... On the other hand, they might not. We used to have very high taxes on businesses, and there were few cases of them moving out. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:01:49 AM)
Head banger wrote:
ok, short post
which canadian city was it?
do you tax all the min wage earners, then pay them back with the GMI
if you raise taxes on high earning individuals, probably businesses as well, dont you think it likely that those people move to a new area?
[Head banger] Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:01:49 AM
ok, short post
which canadian city was it?
do you tax all the min wage earners, then pay them back with the GMI
if you raise taxes on high earning individuals, probably businesses as well, dont you think it likely that those people move to a new area?
[Deep Freeze] Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:45:58 AM
No! They wouldn't! AND.... that is just the way it is ( *throwing my hands up..**) HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:34:44 AM)
_strat_ wrote:
Thats true, I guess. I just did the maths for us - lets say that GMI is 300€/month, and with a population of 2 million, that means 600 million € per month... Or per year, it means more than 3/4 of the entire budget.
IDK, I still think it would be possible. Those loopholes can be closed, but considering that we would have to tax the rich... Well, it would be a political decision, and since politicians themselves are rich, I dont think they will decide for it.
ronhartsell wrote:
axing the rich is getting harde and harde to do...IRS and government leave a million loop holes for the wealthiest to protect their money...not including offshore accts...it all sounds great in theory, but it practicality, it won't work for lack of funds...
_strat_ wrote:
I agree, and thats why I like the idea of GMI. Now, the minimum wage here is a joke too. 500€ total, which means that the worker gets about 300€. Which if you are single and have the good fortune of owning your home, is enough for a basic survival. If you have kids, and a rent/loan payments to pay, its imposibble to get through the month without welfare.
Now, GMI would be set somewhere between 200€ and 400€, and it doesnt matter if you have any other source of income. So, that means that for someone with a minimum wage, the overall income would double. If you have kids, they would get GMI too, which means even more money. Of course, I dont doubt that GMI wont happen anytime soon. So far there were a few articles in the press, and a TV debate about it, but nothing more serious.
As for funding, taxing the rich would be enough, imo. And a bit more responsibility in managing the budget (which usualy means less toys for the military, and Im always in favour of that), and I think we could pull it off.
ronhartsell wrote:
My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off?? Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,,
_strat_ wrote:
Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic...
GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money.
Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).
On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.
