Tax Refund

theporksicle on Mon, 9th Feb 2009 9:38 am 



I think it depends on what the felony is. I don’t think rapists, or murderers, or child molesters or violent offenders should be allowed to vote again but theieves, burglars, other petty criminals should, if they demonstrate they’ve fully reformed.

jbriggs06 on Wed, 11th Feb 2009 10:45 am 



I agree that makes sense, if a 20 something serve time for a felony, but spend 10 years of his life working being a productive citizen that person should be allowed to vote again. The system is very flawed.

theporksicle on Thu, 12th Feb 2009 1:45 pm 



Good. I think there should be a grading system however. Our legal system hasn’t maintained the felony/misdemeanor distinction but I have a basic comprehension of the differences and how felony offenses are liable to imprisonment as opposed to time in the county jail.
I don’t think someone who commits a minor, non-violent offense at the age of 20 should not be allowed to vote at the age of 70 provided they became useful citizens.

jbriggs06 on Sun, 15th Feb 2009 6:19 am 



Well we already do this with felons. Also although I see your point That type of policy would never get passed by congress

jbriggs06 on Wed, 18th Feb 2009 2:00 pm 



Well, the Unemployment rate does not include everyone without a job. If you are under 16, disabled, a stay at home mom, a college student, or several other things your not actually apart of the workforce. Which means that the unemployment rate does not include you, thats why I say although its officially only 9% in the city that I live in, in actuality its most likely over 50%, but those other 41% are not apart of the workforce.

theporksicle on Sat, 21st Feb 2009 5:36 am 



I’m not au fait with currencies and how they work but I’d assume it comes down to buyer confidence (i.e. people are prepared to give up two dollars in return for one pound because they think the pound is more likely to retain its value).

theporksicle on Sun, 22nd Feb 2009 4:37 am 



Then again a downside of stripping too many sections of society of their democratic rights is this, once someone falls into one group they lose nothing by falling into another. I.E. if you are a convicted criminal you had may as well become unemployed too since you already lost your right vote by being a criminal.
But I maintain people who don’t contribute to the running of the country via taxes deserve no say in how its run.

theporksicle on Wed, 25th Feb 2009 9:17 am 



You’re confusing me? Unemployed but still part of the workforce? You mean someone who’s been made redundant? Fair enough, so long as they are not subsisting at the expense of the state and have paid taxes for a number of years its fine that they retain their rights as citizens.
I also think criminals should be stripped of the right to vote for between 3 years and life, depending on the nature of their convictions.

jbriggs06 on Sat, 28th Feb 2009 6:34 pm 



Don’t that higher tax account for your higher currency value? Yea I could at least agree with that to some extent. Unemployment only accounts for those actually in the workforce. That’s why the newly discovered rate of 9% here where I live at is the lowest in the country, but I guess about 60% actually don’t work or even more. Those that are unemployed should still get to vote, but those who for what ever reason are not apart of the workforce should not.

theporksicle on Tue, 3rd Mar 2009 3:50 am 



I’m English. Our tax is even more severe than yours I believe, 40% on evertying above £35k.
Some don’t have to pay (those who won’t work).
If people are forced to pay tax then the least that could happen is that those who don’t pay are not allowed to vote since they have not contributed to the running of the country and thus have no right to have a say in its affairs.
Maybe a flat tax would be fairer?

jbriggs06 on Tue, 3rd Mar 2009 10:51 am 



Its not stealing in the first place. It could only be counted as stealing if some had to pay, and some didn’t, but we all pay. I assumed you were American, where are you from? Just because we can’t take care of the whole world that don’t mean we cant help who we can. American spends billions helping out other countries, its only natural to spend money helping our own citizens.

theporksicle on Wed, 4th Mar 2009 4:39 am 



You didn’t answer my question. Why is it justified to steal from one person and give to another? We cannot take care of all the world’s problems and actually, while I’m not an American, I recall you folks didn’t like it when we taxed you (Boston Tea Party?). So, if anything, its unAmerican to force people to pay income tax.

jbriggs06 on Fri, 6th Mar 2009 12:50 pm 



Its really lucky you got to pick some really good parents, I guess those who picked bad parents are just sol huh? Did it occur to you that some people are born into bad situations. This country always helps out other countries that need help as well as helping its own citizens. Its non American to leave your fellow brethren in need. That’s why no matter how much you complain it wont change.

theporksicle on Sun, 8th Mar 2009 9:01 am 



I see your point but you’ve still not proven why it is up to me to sort out someone else’s mess?
I didn’t put them in a shitty position, why should I be FORCED to bail them out?

jbriggs06 on Sun, 8th Mar 2009 6:20 pm 



Yea, I get your point, and you just proved my point as well. That very natural cold heartedness is why taxes are set up the way they are now. Its non American to turn your back on you fellow citizens like that. They may seem useless to someone like me and you who aer financially stable, but what about those who are not? “Its not my problem”. thats your answer? Well what about the military? Don’t our taxes pay for that as well? Yea, I’m sure well all be just fine without the army.(sarcasm)

theporksicle on Thu, 12th Mar 2009 3:57 am 



I know. But its not fair to take from someone just because someone else is in a financial mess.
Sorry to be coldhearted but at the end of the day, “Its not my problem”. Get my point?
There’s not justification for stealing from one person because another is in a fucked up situation.

jbriggs06 on Sat, 14th Mar 2009 1:05 am 



Do you really think people are noble enough to give a crap about anything that don’t effect them personally? If it were left up to me I wouldn’t pay for anything. Millions of others probably feel the same way, thats why it needs to be regulated. If we left people to choose what they want to pay for far too many would simply choose nothing, or 1 or 2 things that effect only them. Remember most of the people government spending effect directly are people who don’t have good financial situations.

theporksicle on Mon, 16th Mar 2009 4:18 pm 



Yes, but they have no right to take someone’s money and spend it. That’s the issue. I’ve no doubt that if everyone paid 80% tax any government could build the greatest hospitals, police, army etc.
But the point is that people have a right to spend their own money and thus it makes sense to privatise services so you can CHOOSE what to pay for.

jimerp on Wed, 18th Mar 2009 3:28 am 



yeh i know

theporksicle on Wed, 18th Mar 2009 9:47 pm 



Well maybe minus the swearing. Wish my teachers were this honest about how they felt lol.

jimerp on Sat, 21st Mar 2009 11:10 pm 



no i agree with him im just saying hes like a ss teacher

theporksicle on Tue, 24th Mar 2009 5:13 pm 



Why because he knows its fucking wrong for the government to steal money from us? How would you feel if I came to you and said, “Gimme 40% of your income or I’ll lock you in jail”? If anyone else did it it would be called robbery.

jimerp on Wed, 25th Mar 2009 8:05 am 



your like a fatass *** social studies teacher

jbriggs06 on Thu, 26th Mar 2009 7:43 am 



government spending makes economic sense also most of the debt comes from our own private funds its like owning yourself money.

theporksicle on Fri, 27th Mar 2009 7:57 pm 



Thanks!

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!