Lets tax Christmas !

Letty--

Thanks. That story improved my day. We're having another beautiful snowfall in the picturesque Poconos.

and I just got some good news about my son, so things are looking up already. Hmmmm. Silent snow; secret snow. drifting off.....................

You southern belles have sweet dreams of snow. Us Yankee gals have to shovel.

Good news about the good news. Even grown children keep your heart on a teeter-totter.

Hold your dominion.l

Repeat after me "We're putting a tax on christmas". Now imagine a government saying that. Whatever else they add (such as "to help the poor") will be cut off to make better sound bites.

Doesn't that sound really evil. I'm not saying that it is evil, it's just if people do use your plan to create a charity tax at christmas time you can guarantee that the media would make it sound evil because an evil christmas tax would sell a lot more newspapers than a government lending a helping hand in the giving season.

Politicians realise this. That's why they'll never do that plan. They won't get elected again the next term if the media gets a sound bite of them saying "We're putting a tax on christmas".

Whether your plan is good or not, it'll never happen.

theanti, welcome to A2K. I don't know where fresco is, but I think his thread was just tongue in cheek. Would you explain your moniker and avatar? I'm curious about it.

Yeah, mischievous Fresco.

Thankyou, glad to be here.

As for the moniker when I was messing around with friends each of us making up fictitious boasts about who was more evil I decided to come up with a title. The other people in the group were making up claims like, "I'm the child of Satan and Margaret Thatcher." etc. Everyone's heard of the antichrist but it occured to me that the term antibuddha was the same kind of thing but something you never hear. So I jokingly assigned myself the title "The AntiBuddha". The term somewhat stuck.

It's not out of any particular animosity towards Sidhuartha Ghuatama or the buddhist religion, though I do think it's as hokey as any other religion. Admittedly it is partly because Buddhism has become one of the "cool religions" that's it's very un-pc to be against. Thus I thought it would be more original and funny to pick on Buddha versus Christ or any other religious figure.

The avatar is a reverse-colour image of a little buddha statue I found on the net. Except it's a dog sitting in a buddha pose that animal loving buddhists could buy.

Actually, your moniker is almost orthodox zen. Remember the zen admonition, "If you encounter the Buddha, kill him," meaning that you should not attach your mind to anything including the idea of the Buddha.

UhOh. I screwed up..now I must apologize to Micklos..sheeeeeeze

"Who doth knock without"
"Without what?"
"The door"
"Knocking without a door? This isn't some kind of Zen thing is it?"

Hmmm... Actually come to think of it, responding with a joke was very Sufi of me. Damn me and my bizzarre eastern mysticisms.

We should not tax, we should cut spending.

Spoken like a conservative Republican. Let's not share our wealth; let's let the poor suffer the consequences of their immoral inability. Society is not a gathering together of humans for mutual security and collective well-being; it's a feeding-ground on which the more able and greedy can take advantage of the desperation of the less able.

conservative Republican-That's what I am. I say do the most you can with what you have. Help yes, but you spend what you got the BEST way possible and believe me, I know they can cut WAY down cause I've worked for them. They do not need more $, just better management of what they got.

That may be partly true, but I suspect it functions for you as a rationalization for selfishness. I apologize since I don't know you, duce. It's the general posture of your argument, as I read it, that I condemn. It's a matter of worldviews.

Spoken like a true hippie, JL.

Hmmmm. We could tax Valentine's Day. Ah, but I have a marvelous idea. Let's NOT tax food. Some farmers are ticked off with the pres, anyway.

but then, I love Harry Truman's quote:

"We're gonna have taxes and you're gonna have to pay 'em."

and in the same breath:

Art is parasitic on life, just as criticism is parasitic on art.
Harry S. Truman

Well another frame of thought could be to (as people, not the govt) ask The charitable organizations we already have in place to CUT the adm costs they charge (I think United Way is up over 50%) and DO the job they were designed to do.

As a community, we can ask CHURCHES (especailly the mega-ones) to help out. We can support other agencies with our extra TIME and money, and WE CAN hold the GOVT accountable for WHAT IT ALREADY has.

Go to CAGW website and read the PORK list, then just EMAIL your rep. regarding any changes YOU would like to see.

This spend it or loose it attitude the Govt has is plain WRONG.

duce, I agree that the present structure of charitableness (notice I avoid "charity"--that's another topic) is bad. I used to work for a United Way agency, and had my doubts then. We definitely should demand both from the government and private agencies more accountability and efficiency. We cannot withhold our contributions from the gov't, but we can withhold contributions and votes from non-responding officials, and we can withhold money from agencies like United Way.
But we should not throw the proverbial baby out with the water. Too many people--I hope you are not one of them--want to dismantle mandatory and official charitability and find the above problems an excuse to do so.
Voluntary charitableness has the problem thats it is a call for a system that will permit the greedy to withhold support from the less able, forgetting that the laws and other institutions defining and protecting their "property rights" are expressions of the public will. They seem to think that their higher position in the socio-economic hierarchy is natural like that of bigger fish in the ocean or larger animals in the wild. The basis for their privilige is artificial and man-made; they and their property are part of a system which can be dismantled just as they would dismantle social security and other safety nets in our society. It is in the enlightened interest of all of us, wealthy as well as poor, that we have institutions of security in a highly competitive society whose economic structure, in its unregulated laissez faire form, not only permits unbounded wealth but also guarantees poverty.

Why does one require an excuse beyond "it is my wish to"?

Just curious.

From my perspective, Antibuddha, one does not need an excuse (i.e., justification) for being charitable, but one does need an excuse for being uncharitable. Just a perspective.