Atheists on the march in America

Atheists on the march in America

There are 70645 comments on the TurkishPress.com story from Aug 26, 2009, titled Atheists on the march in America. In it, TurkishPress.com reports that:

When South Florida atheists held their first meeting, they were just five friends, having a beer at a bar.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TurkishPress.com.

Imhotep

Saint Petersburg, FL

#71448 Apr 19, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I don't think the US owed as much money as today in real terms back in the 30s.
America's debt was already very large before 2008.
No one wants taxes raised enough to pay down the debt.
This is the case in most Western countries.
<quoted text>
Taxes are necessary
In the USA there is a great disparity between the haves and have-nots where taxes are concerned

normally, the middle class pays about 6% of their income to Social Security; someone making $1 million a year pays about 0.6%(or 90% less than the average person).

A simple flat tax would greatly benefit the middle class and severely piss off the upper-class
Thinking

Sheffield, UK

#71449 Apr 19, 2013
US corporation tax is a big issue too.

I gave evidence in court in San Francisco against the IRS. My US employers were trying not to pay tax in America. They settled on about 10% of what the IRS said it was due.
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Taxes are necessary
In the USA there is a great disparity between the haves and have-nots where taxes are concerned
normally, the middle class pays about 6% of their income to Social Security; someone making $1 million a year pays about 0.6%(or 90% less than the average person).
A simple flat tax would greatly benefit the middle class and severely piss off the upper-class

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#71450 Apr 19, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Taxes are necessary
In the USA there is a great disparity between the haves and have-nots where taxes are concerned
normally, the middle class pays about 6% of their income to Social Security; someone making $1 million a year pays about 0.6%(or 90% less than the average person).
A simple flat tax would greatly benefit the middle class and severely piss off the upper-class
if we had a flat tax very few people would be able to pay their fair share.

this is because the wealthy pay the vast, vast majority of the income taxes in the US. and at the state level.

perhaps you meant a flat tax rate, which would be wholly unfair. we have a very progressive tax sysytem in the us now. you should be thankful for those that help pay your way for you.
Thinking

Sheffield, UK

#71451 Apr 19, 2013
Whatever the source, US tax receipts are not enough. They haven't been enough for a few administrations now.
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>if we had a flat tax very few people would be able to pay their fair share.
this is because the wealthy pay the vast, vast majority of the income taxes in the US. and at the state level.
perhaps you meant a flat tax rate, which would be wholly unfair. we have a very progressive tax sysytem in the us now. you should be thankful for those that help pay your way for you.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#71452 Apr 19, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Whatever the source, US tax receipts are not enough. They haven't been enough for a few administrations now.
<quoted text>
or we are spending too much. over the last decades, business have become far more efficient, so can our gov't services.
Thinking

Sheffield, UK

#71453 Apr 19, 2013
May well be, but that's a different debate.
The debt already exists.

Our government is trying to shrink itself but the debts still mount up. It's a tough one.
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>or we are spending too much. over the last decades, business have become far more efficient, so can our gov't services.
Imhotep

Saint Petersburg, FL

#71454 Apr 19, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>if we had a flat tax very few people would be able to pay their fair share.
this is because the wealthy pay the vast, vast majority of the income taxes in the US. and at the state level.
perhaps you meant a flat tax rate, which would be wholly unfair. we have a very progressive tax sysytem in the us now. you should be thankful for those that help pay your way for you.
Thankful? Now that's a laugh!

Equal tax percentage for all! In a flat-rate system, all are equal. We would all pay the same percentage taxes, thereby keeping it fair. A person who makes $100,000 a year paying 20% taxes pays $20,000. A person who makes $50,000 a year paying the same 20% tax rate, pays $10,000. It's only fair to have the same percentages across the board. Otherwise the very wealthy pay less and less percent the more they make.

Two people earning $50,000 each will pay together less tax than one person having $100,000 on the progressive tax system, so simply $50000+$50000 is not = to $100000. This generates all kind of problems, including that you have to have a monster like IRS to figure out where each dollar came from.

Taxation Equal under the law, equal under the tax code. That one makes more or less than another should not be a basis of determining how much the one should pay, for it introduces bias into the equation and therefore cannot be equal.

The argument that the wealthiest use the greatest amount of resources is irrelevant. Under the law, we are all considered equal. Taxing someone due to their financial situation would be no different than charging them an exorbitant price for a good/service based on some differentiating criteria...which is wrong in any way/shape/form.

The argument that it will bring in less revenue is immaterial. The government exists for the purpose of serving the people, the people do not exist for the purpose of funding the government.

If it cannot fund its current operations with revenue collected from equal taxation from its citizenry, then it needs to scale back operations until it can. They should live within their means, like everyone else should.

;)
Lincoln

United States

#71455 Apr 19, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>if we had a flat tax very few people would be able to pay their fair share.
this is because the wealthy pay the vast, vast majority of the income taxes in the US. and at the state level.
perhaps you meant a flat tax rate, which would be wholly unfair. we have a very progressive tax sysytem in the us now. you should be thankful for those that help pay your way for you.
Flat tax a Republican one percent idea.

The poor wealthy who pay 'the wealthy pay the vast, vast majority of the income taxes"....
we could all skip one meal a week
to give some money to the oppressed billionaires :-)

Romney 47%

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#71456 Apr 19, 2013
Thinking wrote:
John is a massive tw*t.
The godless world rolls on oblivious to his lack of consent.
<quoted text>
Why did you censor "twit?"

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#71458 Apr 19, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Flat tax a Republican one percent idea.
The poor wealthy who pay 'the wealthy pay the vast, vast majority of the income taxes"....
we could all skip one meal a week
to give some money to the oppressed billionaires :-)
Romney 47%
the current iteration of the gop are a bunch of idiot, far right evangelicals.

true conservatives know that a flat tax would not be possible. a flat rate tax would not leave us with a viable tax base.

facts are fun!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#71459 Apr 19, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Thankful? Now that's a laugh!
Equal tax percentage for all! In a flat-rate system, all are equal. We would all pay the same percentage taxes, thereby keeping it fair. A person who makes $100,000 a year paying 20% taxes pays $20,000. A person who makes $50,000 a year paying the same 20% tax rate, pays $10,000. It's only fair to have the same percentages across the board. Otherwise the very wealthy pay less and less percent the more they make.
Two people earning $50,000 each will pay together less tax than one person having $100,000 on the progressive tax system, so simply $50000+$50000 is not = to $100000. This generates all kind of problems, including that you have to have a monster like IRS to figure out where each dollar came from.
Taxation Equal under the law, equal under the tax code. That one makes more or less than another should not be a basis of determining how much the one should pay, for it introduces bias into the equation and therefore cannot be equal.
The argument that the wealthiest use the greatest amount of resources is irrelevant. Under the law, we are all considered equal. Taxing someone due to their financial situation would be no different than charging them an exorbitant price for a good/service based on some differentiating criteria...which is wrong in any way/shape/form.
The argument that it will bring in less revenue is immaterial. The government exists for the purpose of serving the people, the people do not exist for the purpose of funding the government.
If it cannot fund its current operations with revenue collected from equal taxation from its citizenry, then it needs to scale back operations until it can. They should live within their means, like everyone else should.
;)
that is not even near equal, and it is not a flat tax. it is a flat rate tax.

what people have left over after they pay far more than their share of taxes is not your business nor concern.

We have a very progressive tax system in the US now. and for a very good reason.

a flat rate tax system is unteneable. there are no serious economists that would tell you it is.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#71460 Apr 19, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Thankful? Now that's a laugh!
Equal tax percentage for all! In a flat-rate system, all are equal. We would all pay the same percentage taxes, thereby keeping it fair. A person who makes $100,000 a year paying 20% taxes pays $20,000. A person who makes $50,000 a year paying the same 20% tax rate, pays $10,000. It's only fair to have the same percentages across the board. Otherwise the very wealthy pay less and less percent the more they make.
Two people earning $50,000 each will pay together less tax than one person having $100,000 on the progressive tax system, so simply $50000+$50000 is not = to $100000. This generates all kind of problems, including that you have to have a monster like IRS to figure out where each dollar came from.
Taxation Equal under the law, equal under the tax code. That one makes more or less than another should not be a basis of determining how much the one should pay, for it introduces bias into the equation and therefore cannot be equal.
The argument that the wealthiest use the greatest amount of resources is irrelevant. Under the law, we are all considered equal. Taxing someone due to their financial situation would be no different than charging them an exorbitant price for a good/service based on some differentiating criteria...which is wrong in any way/shape/form.
The argument that it will bring in less revenue is immaterial. The government exists for the purpose of serving the people, the people do not exist for the purpose of funding the government.
If it cannot fund its current operations with revenue collected from equal taxation from its citizenry, then it needs to scale back operations until it can. They should live within their means, like everyone else should.
;)
there is no argument about the wealthy using more resources. if they do, they pay more in sales taxes and such.

as far as using gov't resources, it is the poor who use the most. by far.

your idea of gov't and the people is all messed up. we ARE the gov't. it is a two way relationship. if you see the gov't as seperate from the people of the country, you do not understand the nature of your country at all. not even close.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#71461 Apr 19, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Thankful? Now that's a laugh!
Equal tax percentage for all! In a flat-rate system, all are equal. We would all pay the same percentage taxes, thereby keeping it fair. A person who makes $100,000 a year paying 20% taxes pays $20,000. A person who makes $50,000 a year paying the same 20% tax rate, pays $10,000. It's only fair to have the same percentages across the board. Otherwise the very wealthy pay less and less percent the more they make.
Two people earning $50,000 each will pay together less tax than one person having $100,000 on the progressive tax system, so simply $50000+$50000 is not = to $100000. This generates all kind of problems, including that you have to have a monster like IRS to figure out where each dollar came from.
Taxation Equal under the law, equal under the tax code. That one makes more or less than another should not be a basis of determining how much the one should pay, for it introduces bias into the equation and therefore cannot be equal.
The argument that the wealthiest use the greatest amount of resources is irrelevant. Under the law, we are all considered equal. Taxing someone due to their financial situation would be no different than charging them an exorbitant price for a good/service based on some differentiating criteria...which is wrong in any way/shape/form.
The argument that it will bring in less revenue is immaterial. The government exists for the purpose of serving the people, the people do not exist for the purpose of funding the government.
If it cannot fund its current operations with revenue collected from equal taxation from its citizenry, then it needs to scale back operations until it can. They should live within their means, like everyone else should.
;)
well, it is not you, you do not participate, right? you just take.

and yes, that DOES mean you don't get a say. it really does.
Imhotep

Saint Petersburg, FL

#71462 Apr 19, 2013
PSA

The @John virus is mutating -

Download Imhotep's latest app

JesusRoachAway®

$666.66 bargain

;)
Imhotep

Saint Petersburg, FL

#71463 Apr 19, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>well, it is not you, you do not participate, right? you just take.
and yes, that DOES mean you don't get a say. it really does.
Rubbish to the power of 10


The problem with the politicians and the government is the QUALITY of the voters.

The entire government is OWNED, yes OWNED, by corporations and the super rich. All candidates are pre-selected by their puppet masters, that not only control their strings, but 90% of all the money used to put them in office.

The USA is an Oligarchy and has been for almost 30+ years beginning with Reaganomics.

At last, with the advent, of Fox News, et. al., we now can see clearly the process, and the Middle Class is not part of it in any way.

With some luck... some will do great, others will be and are desperate.

Lincoln said “a nation divided against itself cannot endure”... how long will this government endure?

The general public votes against its own better interests, so the 'sales pitch' has been very successful - among the fact-allergic and reality-challenged.

My take...Obama is not as strong as I expected but still is better than entrenched power. Bush left behind a daunting task for ANY politician. It will take much longer than 4 years to undo the nightmare wrought by "Mission accomplished " Bush.

I do not vote. There is NO point. The country is already 'owned'.

And... don't give me that old excuse "If you don't vote you cannot complain"

WRONG!- It is the voters that elected these mammals, not me.

IF... you want change - all incumbants should be immediately voted out of office regardless of party or record.

This, of course, will never occur.

Rule by the few, often seen as having self-serving ends. Aristotle used the term pejoratively for unjust rule by bad men, contrasting oligarchy with rule by an aristocracy. Most classic oligarchies have resulted when governing elites were recruited exclusively from a ruling class, which tends to exercise power in its own interest.

However in the extremely unlikely event one vote will determine a major election mine is available and For Sale to the highest bidder!

I am after all a capitalist

Lol
Thinking

Sheffield, UK

#71464 Apr 19, 2013
Funny.
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did you censor "twit?"

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#71465 Apr 19, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did you censor "twit?"
I think he meant to use an "a" in there...

;)

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#71466 Apr 19, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I think he meant to use an "a" in there...
;)
That's an insult to women everywhere! He's a meanie.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#71467 Apr 19, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
That's an insult to women everywhere! He's a meanie.
agreed.

:)
Thinking

Sheffield, UK

#71468 Apr 19, 2013
Twait?
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I think he meant to use an "a" in there...
;)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 39 min Eagle 12 - 79,975
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 8 hr River Tam 32,582
News People's forum - Get off the fence of religious... (May '10) 15 hr blacklagoon 3 62
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Wed The pope 258,485
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... (Aug '15) Sep 16 blacklagoon 3 91
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) Sep 15 xfrodobagginsx 101
News Atheist billboards to mock Romney, Obama faith (Aug '12) Sep 15 superwilly 47
More from around the web