More Progressives in action

[Times]

Well it seems the Progressives have started their latest round of class warefare with a new proposal on the ballot for Nov 2nd, a income tax only for the "rich". Washington State has always been famous for their lack of income tax and that has drawn some of the best business opportunities they could hope for considering the drastic weather they can get there but recent shortfalls in tax revenue has the Progressive leadership looking for more ways to get more money instead of cutting spending the way their residents have had to do in the recent downturn.

Anyone who earns $200,000 a year as an individual or $400,000 as a couple will have a new tax imposed at 5% while anyone who makes $500,000 as an individual or $1 million as a couple will have a new tax imposed at 9%.

This is being pushed by the State leadership as making the "rich" pay their fair share, but is it fair to say only the few must pay to support Government? Is it fair to see the people making painful cutbacks in this downturn but the elitist Progressives are refusing to live with less?

Supporters of the measure are people like Bill gates and his father as well as all the big Unions. Opponents are the majority of the business world and the middle class who must file their business income as personal income. Both sides have spend millions so far each trying to support their side but outside of these two sides I see a bigger picture, a picture of once again Progressives playing class warefare to get access to more money they are just going to piss away.

There is no amount of tax revenue that will make a Progressive say, "well, we finally have enough, we don't want any more money". There must be limits. we have to tell the Progressives that they have to stop disrespecting the source of their taxes and even reduce their out of control spending.

 

[jokersarewild]

I currently pay to support the government. There are rich people that use loopholes to get around the whole thing. Who says they won't do it now? And even if they are forced to actually pay taxes, it can make up for all of those loopholes they used. "But what about the guys who didn't use loopholes?" I hear you ask. My answer is this: I'd get on bitch-slapping the assholes that did, because you now get to make up for what they did.

Now is it necessarily right to say that a certain amount of the population pay a higher percent than the rest of us? Not really, no. Can they afford it? Probably. Have they already spent more trying to get out of it than they'd probably have to pay in the near future, possibly their lifetimes? Seems like it.

As for the "class warfare" thing, I don't buy it. The "Rich" will do everything in their power to keep their money, whether it be skirting tax law and finding loopholes, or storing it in another country. Trying to actually get them to pay what they owe seems fair. Not like they'll probably pay it anyway. But it's a good thought, eh?

 

[Builder]

If they can earn that much money, without the brains to hedge their profit for taxation purposes, the dumbarses deserve to lose half of their income.

Cane the dumb weirdos. What cave have they been living in to not realise that they can create other income streams with the money they are earning?

Are they such totally mind dead conservative retards to not realise simple measures, such as hedging and investment?

What complete tossas.

 

[wez]

We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes. ~ Leona Helmsley, New York hotel bigshot bitch

 

[wez]

I'd happily pay a hundred million in taxes for a billion dollar government "consulting" contract.. pay em 3,000 if they'll let me sell them a hammer and toilet seat for 25,000..

if only I had buddies inside.. dammit

 

[Times]

Now is it necessarily right to say that a certain amount of the population pay a higher percent than the rest of us? Not really, no. Can they afford it? Probably. Have they already spent more trying to get out of it than they'd probably have to pay in the near future, possibly their lifetimes? Seems like it.

And yet those same people are the only people creating jobs on any real level. How does it help their community to discourage people from investing?

As for the "class warfare" thing, I don't buy it. The "Rich" will do everything in their power to keep their money, whether it be skirting tax law and finding loopholes, or storing it in another country. Trying to actually get them to pay what they owe seems fair. Not like they'll probably pay it anyway. But it's a good thought, eh?

The class warfare is how the Progressives 'sell' their tax increases. They show how evil the "rich" are and how they need to pay more becuase it is unfair they have so much while other people have so little......what a bunch of garbage. You can't elevate one segment by bringing down another segment of society. Great prosperity of one group let's them want more success and create more jobs and that leade everyone to doing better. If you bring down the one guy who is doing well, then you also bring down his incentive to create new jobs so you have basically killed the goose that way laying the golden eggs (jobs).

You know what is even worse?

If this measure passes the Progressives will pay a group to "ESTIMATE" how much new tax money they will get and before the first dime is collected, they will have spent it all and after they don't get as much tax money as is predicted (they are always short) suddenly the Progressives will say how they have to raise taxes again to make up for the shortfall.......

************************

At this point I just tell the Progressives no. No more new taxes, live on what you have, streamline the waste in the existing programs you already have.

A Progressive will never get enough tax money, they always spend every dime and are out there with their hands in our pockets again, and agan, and again. It never stops.

 

[Times]

Here is another great example of how Progressives never get enough tax revenue:

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

OBION COUNTY, Tenn. - Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department won't respond, then watches it burn. That's exactly what happened to a local family tonight.

A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground.

The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn't do anything to stop his house from burning.

Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.

The mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.

This fire went on for hours because garden hoses just wouldn't put it out. It wasn't until that fire spread to a neighbor's property, that anyone would respond.

Turns out, the neighbor had paid the fee.

"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.

Because of that, not much is left of Cranick's house.

They called 911 several times, and initially the South Fulton Fire Department would not come.

The Cranicks told 9-1-1 they would pay firefighters, whatever the cost, to stop the fire before it spread to their house.

"When I called I told them that. My grandson had already called there and he thought that when I got here I could get something done, I couldn't," Paulette Cranick.

It was only when a neighbor's field caught fire, a neighbor who had paid the county fire service fee, that the department responded. Gene Cranick asked the fire chief to make an exception and save his home, the chief wouldn't.

We asked him why.

He wouldn't talk to us and called police to have us escorted off the property. Police never came but firefighters quickly left the scene. Meanwhile, the Cranick home continued to burn.

We asked the mayor of South Fulton if the chief could have made an exception.

"Anybody that's not in the city of South Fulton, it's a service we offer, either they accept it or they don't," Mayor David Crocker said.

Friends and neighbors said it's a cruel and dangerous city policy but the Cranicks don't blame the firefighters themselves. They blame the people in charge.

"They're doing their job," Paulette Cranick said of the firefighters. "They're doing what they are told to do. It's not their fault."

To give you an idea of just how intense the feelings got in this situation, soon after the fire department returned to the station, the Obion County Sheriff's Department said someone went there and assaulted one of the firefighters.

**************************

I'm sorry, but you don't watch a home burn to the ground just because he did not pay an extra $75 fee.

Basic land taxes used to cover all services but local Governments have decided that they can extort more money out of residents by refusing to give them fire protection unless they pay an extra fee?

Really?

 

[hugo]

It appears to me that the individual lived outside the city limits and that the county has no fire department and therefore the city allows county residents to pay a fee for fire protection. This fee is neccesary so county residents do not get a free ride on the backs of the city residents. He should have paid the fee.

 

[Times]

It appears to me that the individual lived outside the city limits and that the county has no fire department and therefore the city allows county residents to pay a fee for fire protection. This fee is neccesary so county residents do not get a free ride on the backs of the city residents. He should have paid the fee.

True, but you don't just watch a home burn down just because of a $75 fee.

They pay County taxes but the County does not provide fire services. The least the County should do is create a combined service and help County residents get these serivces that most would consider basic.

I know you like to act the hard azz hugo but could you really stand there and watch a home burn down and face yourself in the mirror? I could never do that myself, rules be damned, I would have put out the fire if I had been the firefighters.

And why not let him pay the $75 then? He offered to pay whatever they wanted and still they said no.

 

[IWS]

And why not let him pay the $75 then? He offered to pay whatever they wanted and still they said no.

That would be like buying insurance after the fire.

 

[hugo]

And why not let him pay the $75 then? He offered to pay whatever they wanted and still they said no.

That would be like buying insurance after the fire.

Or like buying healthcare insurance after you get cancer.

Or like giving healthcare away to illegal aliens.

 

[Times]

And why not let him pay the $75 then? He offered to pay whatever they wanted and still they said no.

That would be like buying insurance after the fire.

No, buying insurance after the fire would cost the insurance company hundreds of thousands of dollars but we are talking about $75, this is not a lot of money and he even offered to pay more. He was not looking to make money out of the deal as the insurance example would seem.

He just wanted them to put out the fire, they responded to the fire spreading next door and was already there and still they just watched as a family home burned. That is some cold sh!t.

******************

My problem with this is the County refuses to offer fire protection services and the city seems to be extorting money from the County residents. Of course the County commissioners and county mayor are mostly Democrats.......

Tell me this, what are basic land taxes for? What does the County resident get for his taxes on his property?

 

[hugo]

It appears the county does not provide fire protection and that the city does. IMO. the county should pay the city the $75 dollar per property fee either out of current tax revenues or with a tax increase.

 

[Times]

It appears the county does not provide fire protection and that the city does. IMO. the county should pay the city the $75 dollar per property fee either out of current tax revenues or with a tax increase.

That would be reasonable hugo, just leaving the residents of the County to fend for themselves seems wrong to me.

And the firefighters just watching a home burn also seems wrong to me.

 

[hugo]

It appears the county does not provide fire protection and that the city does. IMO. the county should pay the city the $75 dollar per property fee either out of current tax revenues or with a tax increase.

That would be reasonable hugo, just leaving the residents of the County to fend for themselves seems wrong to me.

And the firefighters just watching a home burn also seems wrong to me.

There are some things that should not be left to the individual. Both my neighbors homes are within 20 feet of mine. I would hate for their homes to be ablaze and no one putting them out because they had not paid an optional fire protection fee. You are correct it puts the firefighters in a position where they look like total assholes.

 

[IWS]

And why not let him pay the $75 then? He offered to pay whatever they wanted and still they said no.

That would be like buying insurance after the fire.

No, buying insurance after the fire would cost the insurance company hundreds of thousands of dollars but we are talking about $75, this is not a lot of money and he even offered to pay more. He was not looking to make money out of the deal as the insurance example would seem.

He just wanted them to put out the fire, they responded to the fire spreading next door and was already there and still they just watched as a family home burned. That is some cold sh!t.

In this case the city is the insurance company and it would cost thousands of dollars.

Sure he was. He only wanted to pay for the protective service if he needed it.

Maybe the city should put out the fire and then charge the subject for the entire call out. Wages, equipment, etc... if he didn't want to pay the up front $75.

The guy admitted that he gambled that he could get the service for free.

 

[Times]

In this case the city is the insurance company and it would cost thousands of dollars.

I don't see that, the fire depatement went there anyway becuase the fire spread to another property that was covered, I can see as a computer making a decision not to roll at first, but once they were already there, how can a human being just watch a famliy home burn and do nothing?

Sure he was. He only wanted to pay for the protective service if he needed it.

Maybe the city should put out the fire and then charge the subject for the entire call out. Wages, equipment, etc... if he didn't want to pay the up front $75.

The guy admitted that he gambled that he could get the service for free.

Again, charging him extra would be resonable, telling him no, not under any circumstance would they put out the fire was not reasonable in my opinion.

Yes, he gambled, but why just stand there and watch his house burn? Was that designed as insult to injury? Rub salt in his wounds because he did not want to give them $75 up front?

Send a message to the other County residents that they better pay up?

What is next? You have to pay for a cop to show up and investigate your murder?