Who'll be the better president?

[Bigjohn]

Originally Posted by mdm-adph

I don't know who else is doing this -- but please stop saying the "democrat" party. You're not Joseph McCarthy.

It's the "Democratic" party.

On the primary ballots in most states, they ask "Democrat or Republican".
And, if it's a term of derision, then, well, I use it well - because I hold most policies of that party in disdain.
Remember, I'm a Libertarian. So, a person should be empowered to use that which the highest power (no, not Obama) gave him - Freedom of Choice / aka Free Will.

Originally Posted by DaMulta

"A tax BREAK is leaving money in the hands of the guy who earned it."
A tax break that will help everyone that should stay in the government to help even more people.
Doing that takes money, and yes some bad comes out, but more good should come out. Life isn't easy, and the
more someone that can help"Your Government"should do so without complaining/caring about doing it.

Boy, you sound like Joe Biden. Be Patriotic, pay your fair share.
Sorry, I choose to complain, because the GOVERNMENT is not a charity. I give to charity, we've covered that already.

One Nation under God, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all

God-Un-stoppable Love

indivisible-incapable of being divided

Liberty- freedom from having unlimited power

Justice - righteousness

For our country to say it's under god that means doing good like the bible teaches which is caring about everyone.

For our country to say it's indivisible means that we are one, not our own individuals.

For our country to say under Liberty means that no man should have the power to put another man down.

For our country to say it's under Justice means that no man should be treated unfairly.


It should mean those things every time you say them.


did u not read this post?
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpo...postcount=2518

Different times, my friend... and tax revenues went UP - Dramatically up - when Regan pushed the tax rates down. We'd have had a surplus then, were it not for the compromises he had to make with the Democrat controlled congress....

@Palit_Guy

It is a big reason for people to vote for one party and not the other. I hear that reason more than any other reason there is.

I'm not getting all hard core about it, but that reason is there for a fact, and they are part of my own beliefs/values on the subject.

Religeion is just that - a teaching of your own moral beliefs.
But nowhere does it say "if you don't tithe 10%, we're going to take it from you". No, it says "If you give to the poor, you'll be blessed in the afterlife..."

[DaMulta]

Originally Posted by WhiteLotus

Because humanity should take a step back from their personal beliefs and elect someone that is going to good for the economy. Here in the UK the prime minister is not allowed to be religious.

What are you standing for if you don't stand for your own beliefs?

Isn't your beliefs how you feel that your country should be run?

For the good or the bad?

I do to believe that religion should be kept out of government, and for the most part it is. But your own beliefs run your life, and those people that are running this use their own beliefs(not because of what church you went to or at all). Most of those beliefs are taught to you in some forum of religion, and the other parts not. That's why we pick from different people on who we elect because we want to share their beliefs.

To not use them would be insane.

[pepsi71ocean]

Originally Posted by Triprift

Whatever happened to helping your fellow man like the Black Eyed Peas said "where is the love" the homeless and the poor are shunned big time these day sad

I refuse to pay more than 50% of my income so some crack mom can support her kid. This is bull shit, this spread the wealth crap hurts countries. Why should i pay more money so some under-achieving person can make ends meet. If you are poor then do something get motivated to fix the problem. The problem is we are becoming a "give me give me give" society where the people want things but are un willing to pay for them.

Originally Posted by Bigjohn

But what caused them to be in that condition? And, why not private charity to take care of them? Why must GOVERNMENT steal from the successful to pay for the mistakes of the few who just can't buy a clue?

They are in this situation because they are not motivated to go to school or go to get that job that will help fix the situation they are in. If you hate being poor then go get a job, or go get a better paying job, hell i did it, why can you, or her or them.

Originally Posted by btarunr

Do you guys have tax exemptions for charity? I think Obama's wealth-spreading ideas aren't quite charitable. Larger charity organisations might suffer, eg: WWF, UNCF (UNICEF), Sal. Army, etc. People might think that the higher slabs of tax they end up paying goes into the government's own [welfare] policies.

Certain organizations are 501c or tax writable, meaning if you donate then you can write it off on your taxes. I donate money and write it off all the time, cuz it cheaper for me to donate money then to pay for it in taxes.

[CyberDruid]

So are you guys aware that Pailin is a Creationist and believes that Dinosaurs walked with men about 6000 years ago> Did you know that she welcomes the Apocalypse in her lifetime?

Is this the person we need in office? A backwoods redneck creationist that wants to end life on Earth as we know it?

Sounds kind of frightening to me...but then again I don't believe that supetitous crap anyway.

There's Christians and then there are whacko fundamentalists that have perverted the Bible to their own bizarre beliefs and agendas.

Personally I think anyone that would vote for Palin (a vote for McCain is a vote for Palin) is a cretin.

Unfortunately I have a feeling that 50% of America is cretinous, superstituous, pseudo-christian and think that somehow immanetizing the eschaton will bring about their "specail" salvation.

I.E. these Cretins think that they are the chosen ones and that all the rest of us will perish while they ascend...

What a bunch of weirdos...but that's America for ya....our government and our religion has been co-opted by a bunch of radicals bent on world destruction...frigging scarey.

[DaMulta]

Be Patriotic, pay your fair share.
Very true words there.

Originally Posted by Bigjohn

Different times, my friend... and tax revenues went UP - Dramatically up - when Regan pushed the tax rates down. We'd have had a surplus then, were it not for the compromises he had to make with the Democrat controlled congress....

And now we have had a Republican Controlled Congress(ended not so long ago) with a Republican Controlled Senate(for the most), along with a Republican President for a while now.

How are we doing?

[pepsi71ocean]

Originally Posted by CyberDruid

So are you guys aware that Pailin is a Creationist and believes that Dinosaurs walked with men about 6000 years ago> Did you know that she welcomes the Apocalypse in her lifetime?

Is this the person we need in office? A backwoods redneck creationist that wants to end life on Earth as we know it?

Sounds kind of frightening to me...but then again I don't believe that supetitous crap anyway.

There's Christians and then there are whacko fundamentalists that have perverted the Bible to their own bizarre beliefs and agendas.

Personally I think anyone that would vote for Palin (a vote for McCain is a vote for Palin) is a cretin.

Unfortunately I have a feeling that 50% of America is cretinous, superstituous, pseudo-christian and think that somehow immanetizing the eschaton will bring about their "specail" salvation.

I.E. these Cretins think that they are the chosen ones and that all the rest of us will perish while they ascend...

What a bunch of weirdos...but that's America for ya....our government and our religion has been co-opted by a bunch of radicals bent on world destruction...frigging scarey.

who gives 2 shits about the micro-crap. I mean so she is religious, she is not goign to force America to become christian or something.

And besides ide welcome the Apocalypse this world is so fucked up we could use the reset button, only after i get my guns and ammo for the zombies and looters.

[pepsi71ocean]

Originally Posted by DaMulta

And now we have had a Republican Controlled Congress with a Republican Controlled Senate(for the most), along with a Republican President for a while now.

How are we doing?

actually i believe that the congress is controlled by democrats, and have been since shortly after the re-election

[Palit_Guy]

There is no law that a government official cannot publicly claim the faith they hold. They typically don't do so because it would alienate them from the other faiths so they just avoid the subject as much as possible.

The separation of church and state actually means that the state cannot not support or require one religion over another. Back when the government was formed, certain religions were favored over others. For example, Henry VIII made the Anglican Church the official church of England. Those churches got special treatment over other churches.

The separation of church and state does not forbid the state supporting any particular religion, rather, it prohibits the state from limiting religious options.

It doesn't violate the separation rules to say one nation under god because it doesn't really say which god or specify any particular religion. It does alienate polytheistic religions but there are so few people within those types of faith in the US that it doesn't get much attention. When the Galactica finally lands on Earth they may take exception to it.

[DaMulta]

Originally Posted by pepsi71ocean

actually i believe that the congress is controlled by democrats, and have been since shortly after the re-election

2006 is when we won it back. congress
divided Senate---have to give to get it past.
with a republican president with veto power.

A two-thirds vote in both houses has the power to override a Presidential veto
not going to happen-stuck

[mdm-adph]

Originally Posted by Bigjohn

On the primary ballots in most states, they ask "Democrat or Republican".
And, if it's a term of derision, then, well, I use it well - because I hold most policies of that party in disdain.
Remember, I'm a Libertarian. So, a person should be empowered to use that which the highest power (no, not Obama) gave him - Freedom of Choice / aka Free Will.

Hey -- use the term if you want, just know who you're putting yourself in league with. Joseph McCarty was a horrible, horrible man.

And if you're a libertarian, you're a horrible libertarian. A libertarian wouldn't be telling anyone how to live their life -- they'd be letting people live the way they want to, and if they didn't like it, they'd be moving to Montana and living off the land.

[SK-1]

Originally Posted by CyberDruid

A backwoods redneck creationist that wants to end life on Earth as we know it?

So she and Al-Qaeda have a thing or 2 in common, what's the big woop?

I guess that since Obama went to the "Chicago church of hate" FOR 20 YEARS the USA has it coming anyway,....right?

[Palit_Guy]

Here's the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

it doesn't say anything about how religion can be used to impact the creation of other laws not specifically related to religion. For example, two Congressmen may go to the same church. If one does not support the other, could the first "do" something to them from within the church that could impact their career?

If that were to happen, how would it be any different than using any other form of leverage (fancy name for blackmail) over each other?

[DaMulta]

Be Patriotic, pay your fair share.
I thought about this, and how I try and do more.....when I don't have to.

More non-smokers vote than smokers so those taxes pass every time.....

A few years ago my state passed more taxes on tobacco. To something around 50 cents a pack of cigarettes.

We do have lots of Indian smoke shops where it would be tax free. They are everywhere here.

When that law passed we lost 120 million in tax revenue over night because the tax went to high for most people. Everyone went to the smoke shops and stopped paying their taxes. It's what happens when you tax a class of people that can not afford to pay them.

Now most of those taxes go to medical programs such as helping small employers get insurance for their people without it killing them

Because of that I do not buy my cigarettes at the smoke shop 99% of the time. I only do so when I'm in a hurry(drive thru window)
(There is a smoke shop in the same shopping center my shop(job) is in. 500feet away from me I do not go there. My smokes would cost 3.25-3.50usd a pack instead of around 4.35usd a pack at a store with the tax)


I go out of my way and pay that tax everyday because I believe it helps someone else.


I truly do this, and think about it all the time.

[Palit_Guy]

Time for a review here. Here's the graphic Damulta posted earlier to show how Republican Presidents are responsible for increases in national debt.



In fact, it's not the President that determines the spending and borrowing habits of the US but the Senate.

This chart shows the whole picture combining the Presidents with the Senate. http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgov...division_2.htm

When you look at it the result is pretty interesting. For every red bar on the graph you will see the democrats controlled the house.

The exceptions are 2001 - 2006. The reasons for this are debatable and include things like, the war(s) and the impact of the previous 44 years of democrat spending finally catching up to us. There have also been some changes in how the national debt is calculated that have an impact on the numbers.

There has also been, as was previously mentioned, a trend among republicans to be significantly more liberal then they have typically been in the past.

Regardless of who is responsible for the US incurring all this debt, I fail to see anyone making it a point to reduce it. The most common campaign message has been about tax cuts and the second most common set of messages can be lumped into a group called tax spending. These things would include health care, education, war and anything else that has a price tag.

A good example would be the bailout of high level lending institutions. The general consensus is that giving them money will not fix the situation in the long term. The money they will receive will actually be printed (or generated electronically). That simply adds more money to the system which lowers the overall value of all money, not just what they were given.

This is the definition of inflation.

If tax breaks are offered above and beyond what already exists the national income will go down. Basically the nation will get a pay cut.

Now when you as an individual get a pay cut you will typically decrease your spending. In the case of the nation, both sides are talking about improving education, health care and a whole host of other things.

I'm curious to know how they plan to do this with less money than what is already being spent to get what we already have. Obviously that's not a sustainable plan and at some point the government will have to stop spending as much money as it does. They will have to do so without reducing the tax we pay if we are ever going to get caught up on our bills.

It's just as simple as that and I don't see how it can be any other way.

[mdm-adph]

Originally Posted by Palit_Guy

The exceptions are 2001 - 2006.

That's a pretty big farking exception. It almost blows apart the whole theory -- I was about to agree with you if it weren't for that.

[Palit_Guy]

One thing I have never understood is why people are taxed at different rates at all. What ever happened to the idea of a flat tax? Why should people be penalized for doing well?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/151.html
Here are the tax rates for the last umpteen years.

For 2008 if you made $32,500 you're bring-home pay would be $26,040. If you make $33,331 you will bring home $26,039. You effectively bring home less money than someone how actually made less money than you did. WTF?

Now if you cut the taxes of the middle class (and i'm not sure how Obama defines the middle class) that is going to make the situation even worse.

If you take an even broader view of taxation, why is it even a percentage? If you have a program designed to benefit a certain segment of the population but is off limits to another segment isn't' that a little biased?

If I pay money into the welfare system, shouldn't I be able to get welfare back out of it? When do we get to see programs that benefit people instead of poor people? Part of my tax money goes to funding public schools. But if I made $250,000 per year the school wouldn't turn my child away saying i made too much money to use the public school system would they?

Some kids in school get free meals because their parents don't make much money. If I've paid into the system that funds this, why are my kids not eligible for the same program? Because I'm not poor I'm not able to take advantage of a government program.

This is really an arbitrary system for the redistribution of wealth that is not applied equally to all citizens.

Now, if we had an explanation of why things are being split up the way they are I might be able to get behind it. We need a definition of why programs exist and what their goals are. If there is $X.XX amount of money paid into a specific fund, other funds should not be able to take the excess. This is what we've seen in the social security area.

[mdm-adph]

Makes a lot of sense -- I've said on here before I'm a big fan of either a "Flat Tax" or a "Fair Tax" (same thing, just taxing sales instead of income).

[Palit_Guy]

Originally Posted by mdm-adph

That's a pretty big farking exception. It almost blows apart the whole theory -- I was about to agree with you if it weren't for that.

Look deeper into it. My biggest concern is how left the right wing has been moving over the last 8 years.

93-99 was all republican and things went down. But those republicans are gone having been replaced by a new kinder gentler sort. Well, a kinder, gentler republican is a democrat.

It all comes back to the definition of a republican and a democrat. In its oversimplified but not too far from the truth definition, a republican believes in less government and a democrat believes in more.

A republican can be for reduction of greenhouse gases by passing legislation that requires companies to reduce their output of them. There also has to be a committee that overseas an agency that determines whether or not companies comply with the law. When they don't, penalties are imposed.

A democrat can do the same thing(s) but would tack on a lot more. Things like committees that run agencies that study the effect and causes of global warming. There may be additional agencies and committees that oversee the original committees and agencies and determine whether or not they are being effective.

It is not the principal function of the government to determine what is and is not beneficial or detrimental to our citizens. The citizens are responsible for that. The role of government is to provide the muscle behind the voice of the people.

For my part I blame the leftward trend of republicans for their and our slump.

[CyberDruid]

Flat Tax makes the most sense. I doubt we'll ever see it...too easy. No way to fuck us.

[newconroer]

Originally Posted by pepsi71ocean

Agreed, but then again we started this mess in iraq, and we should see it through till its done.

GT90 said the same thing.

At what cost though? How can you justify the lives of your military youth, and the cost, for something that is no longer justified?

Imagine if Vietnam was still going on, because America decided to stay and 'patch things up.'
Would it be acceptable thirty years later?

Originally Posted by pepsi71ocean

I would support the Government taking orphans and kids off the street, and then putting them into a government run military school system with housing, and when they turn 18 have them enter the military, as a form of back pay. Thus we kill many birds with one stone, Fix the unadaptive of kids, kids in the garbage, crack parents with kids on welfare.

I wouldn't, because government should have no hand in such matters. What they should do, is get rid of the ridiculous income tax, so that hard working good hearted citizens will be able to afford to be charitable without it putting them into poverty. There's plenty of people wanting to donate to and /or run a private institution for many valorous reasons, but they simply cannot afford to.

Originally Posted by pepsi71ocean

In either case a draft will help straightening out the kids of today. Not to mention cut down on health care costs because the draft would reduce obesity in children.

I support a draft, simply because the military does wonders for young people.

Originally Posted by pepsi71ocean

All tae and Judo have more to do with disarming, and throwing then actual H2H. Akido is H2H. I learned Judo and Akido because they go hand in hand. Judo teaches you to flow with the enemies movementum, and in the case of self defense it works, i can throw off a knife attack and then use Akido to disarm the person and use the knife against him if needed.
[/color]

I'm aware what they offer, and yes they could be slightly effective, but then again they are martial 'arts.' It'd be a real shit if you just happen to start pulling some flying dragon on some dude, and he turned out be a royal class Muay Thai fighter who also knows Ninjitsu


Well, we were all gun ho about it at the time, because we felt that Israel was doing the right thing, and that the UN was shutting them down because Israel was being to "forceful".

Personally, it doesn't matter, the Middle east was full of savages like the terrorist 100 years ago, and 100 years from now that's all that will exist, and they an all destroy themselves for all i care. The only reason the middle east is so important is because of oil, and 100 years from now when we drive on electric and not gas, those head chopping savages will be left in the dust.

Well the jews are a huge influence, and the reasoning behind that ranges anywhere from political to religious to racial to reprimdands to theological... they are God's children after all. I don't think it's coincidence that so much revolves around them... but again, not America's responsibility.

Originally Posted by Palit_Guy

I also like the idea of showing people that Palit, as a company, is made up of real people. Palit is not some high and mighty corporation and it respects the opinions and individuality of its employees.

Haha, what a pitch!

Originally Posted by Triprift

I think the prob with the US is not the ppl in general its the ones who are in power. I know that the majority of ppl in America are good honest hard working ppl but your leaders in particular your last one led alot to be desired. Just like here in oz for example if there had been a referendum on wether troops should of been sent to the Middle east the majority of ppl would of said no as im sure would do to in the states. It was just dissapointing it didnt happen like that is was almost like the government saying weed to to stupid to make the right decision so weel make it for you. :/

I'm afraid that's a major modern cop-out. "Blame the establishment."

Everyone is at fault. Obviously, with the government's hand in every cookie jar, progress is slow to be made, but there wouldn't need to be so much to work on, if Americans in general respected their Constitution, and likewise, had not caused the government to gain increasing total control.

A hard fact is that uncontrolled immigration, un-checked anti-American liberalism and political correctness has had a nasty result on everything that is American. Unfortunatley, whenever you even whisper something like that, you get a bunch of over-zealous Ted Kennedy fu** tards up in your face about how you're 'racist.'

[mdm-adph]

Originally Posted by Palit_Guy

Look deeper into it. My biggest concern is how left the right wing has been moving over the last 8 years.

93-99 was all republican and things went down. But those republicans are gone having been replaced by a new kinder gentler sort. Well, a kinder, gentler republican is a democrat.

It all comes back to the definition of a republican and a democrat. In its oversimplified but not too far from the truth definition, a republican believes in less government and a democrat believes in more.

A republican can be for reduction of greenhouse gases by passing legislation that requires companies to reduce their output of them. There also has to be a committee that overseas an agency that determines whether or not companies comply with the law. When they don't, penalties are imposed.

A democrat can do the same thing(s) but would tack on a lot more. Things like committees that run agencies that study the effect and causes of global warming. There may be additional agencies and committees that oversee the original committees and agencies and determine whether or not they are being effective.

It is not the principal function of the government to determine what is and is not beneficial or detrimental to our citizens. The citizens are responsible for that. The role of government is to provide the muscle behind the voice of the people.

For my part I blame the leftward trend of republicans for their and our slump.

(You should be a Ron Paul fan, for one thing. )

I don't know about all of the "noble Republican" idea, though. The fact of deficits going down in the US in the 90's could have had more to do with the Executive and Legislative branches being occupied by separate parties, than on any sort of fiscal responsibility by the Republicans. When those two branches can't agree, many spending bills won't get passed, no matter who's ideology is more dominant.

The fact that the Republicans changed their tune so quickly when Bush came to power, and became spend-crazy wackos, leads me to almost believe that all that "fiscal responsibility" stuff was all a sham in the first place.

Originally Posted by CyberDruid

Flat Tax makes the most sense. I doubt we'll ever see it...too easy. No way to fuck us.

Yeah there is -- just keep all the exceptions for the rich. Even with a Flat Tax, they'd still be paying less tax.

That being said, though I'm in favor of a Flat Tax, I'm not in favor of many tax deductions, especially those for giving to charity.

I understand how the system works, but it just seems so slimy to only give to charity because you think you're getting something out of it.

Originally Posted by newconroer

I support a draft, simply because the military does wonders for young people.

If I recall, Obama's actually for some sort of draft for young people, in exchange for college aid and whatnot -- not exactly military service, but something akin to the "CCC" and other government work organizations that America had in the 1930's.

[Bigjohn]

Originally Posted by CyberDruid

So are you guys aware that Pailin is a Creationist and believes that Dinosaurs walked with men about 6000 years ago> Did you know that she welcomes the Apocalypse in her lifetime?

Prove it, or I call bullshit. You're spending too much time reading the Daily Kos.

[Palit_Guy]

Taken to their extreme democrats are socialists and republicans are isolationists. Of course no one ever actually goes all the way to the extreme but this is what shapes their positions.

I don't believe that all people remain equal even though they are created that way. Some people get cancer and die early while some live to be 100 with a cigarette in their mouth the whole time. that's not equal. Men can't give birth, women can. That's not equal.

Equality among people is something that we impose and it is not something that simply exists. If you steal something you will pay a consequence (most of the time) that someone who did not steal will not have to pay. That's not equal.

If two people steal something of the same value and get two different judges there is no reason to expect they will receive the same punishment. If two people do the same job at two different companies and make the same amount of profit for those companies there is no reason to expect they will receive the same amount of compensation for their efforts. Two more things that aren't equal.

In fact, I would be willing to bet that the ways in which people really are equal (yes, there are some ways) is so vastly outnumbered by the ways in which they are NOT equal that it wouldn't even constitute a rounding error.

I think the next evolutionary step in our development as human beings is to start trying to identify the ways in which we are not equal. We need to learn to accept these differences because it is from these differences that we learn our sense of self.

There are certain things that I'm good at and there are certain things that I'm not good at. Over the years I've come to realize that other people make up for my shortcomings. I find that i always do better when I'm working as part of a group than when I'm all alone.

THERE IS A REASON FOR THAT. The reason is the differences between me and the rest of the team. I'm not better than other people but I am different.

Redistribution of wealth based simply on the amount of money you have doesn't help those that don't have it to get it on their own. It creates a class-based society of the people that do and the people that do not. Simply handing people money does not improve their self-esteem nor cause them to want to improve themselves.

Being poor is not a problem. I lived in a pickup truck in downtown Boston for about 4 months many years ago. A cardboard box was the next step down. Surprisingly enough i wasn't terribly unhappy. Inconvenienced, yes, when it came time to pick up a girl because I couldn't exactly take her back to my place but not really unhappy.

Eventually I got tired of living like that and I came back home. Lived with my mom for a while, went through a series of jobs and here I am today. I achieved all this because I finally decided I wanted something more than my pickup truck. Simply handing me some money from time to time would likely have extended the period of my my being ok with living in the damn truck.

[DaedalusHelios]

Originally Posted by SK-1

So she and Al-Qaeda have a thing or 2 in common, what's the big woop?

I guess that since Obama went to the "Chicago church of hate" FOR 20 YEARS the USA has it coming anyway,....right?

Obama hasn't gone to that church since the preacher started giving hate infused sermons. Remember Barack Obama is half white. His white side(mother), was the one who raised him and treated him with respect and raised him all those years while his father wasn't even in the same country. So why would he enjoy hate filled sermons against the side of his family that raised him and didn't leave him in the cold? The moral of this story is a man with half black features doesn't make him black, it depends on who raised him(which is his mother). You being scared of "negroes" shows through in most posts. Fear makes you weak.


PS. If Obama said he hasn't been to that church in a year or two the republican politicians would call him "godless". They are already doing this to multiple politicians out of pathetic desperation. Dole called Kay Hagan godless and watched her popularity plummet like the fool she is.

Originally Posted by Palit_Guy

Taken to their extreme democrats are socialists and republicans are isolationists. Of course no one ever actually goes all the way to the extreme but this is what shapes their positions.

Isolationists don't declare war unless attacked. Iraq didn't attack us first. Republicans have shifted thanks to NeoCons. Republicans taken to their extreme right now are imperialists. Look at the modern platform.

[laszlo]

Originally Posted by Palit_Guy

One thing I have never understood is why people are taxed at different rates at all. What ever happened to the idea of a flat tax? Why should people be penalized for doing well?

i don't understand why you american people pay taxes to IRS; a lot former irs employees didn't because they haven't found the legal base of the institution