Why are so many college students far-left liberals or socialists?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, you dodged the question again. 32k, 64k -> either way, did you pay it off?

[/ QUOTE ]

How would he know? This is *exactly* what I've been asking you: at what point is the obligation fufilled?

[/ QUOTE ]
Did his net, total taxes paid by age 23, assuming ALL of it went to funding his education and ONLY his education, equal or exceed 32,000 (or 64,000, or whatever other figure he wanted to stipulate) dollars?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not. But the net, total payments to the car dealer by the time I drove off the lot didn't equal $30,000, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

PS: You dodged the question.

[/ QUOTE ]
If he received 32,000 worth of tuition and his TOTAL taxes paid are less than 32,000, he can be absolutely sure he did not pay off his debt, unless there has been significant deflation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I missing something here? Don't parents often pay for (some or all of) their offspring's college bills? Therefore, shouldn't the question be, have the parents' taxes exceeded the cost of the student's college subsidy? In most cases this answer would be Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually in most cases the answer has to be no, since all folks' taxes are pooled and universities and colleges are paid for from the pool. For every kid going to college, there's something like 4 sets of parents paying the bills, not just his own.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get how this relates to the question at hand: whether you should examine the student's tax payments or the parents'.

[/ QUOTE ]
If the student claims to be an ACist, you should examine his tax payments to see whether or not he is accepting a subsidy. If he thinks taxes are wrong except when levied against his parents - an interesting position, and one I'd be inclined to explore with him - examine their taxes as well by all means. Neither examination will change the fact that for every person who's gone to college, about 5 people's taxes have paid for it.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They sure do, and you're wrong yet again. I said:
[ QUOTE ]
As far as I'm concerned, as mentioned before, you can stop paying as soon as you stop using the benefit. (As things stand at present of course, you must <u>also</u> leave the territory of the US.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I said that as things stand at present, if you both leave the territory of the US and stop employing ALL benefits of being a citizen, including the right of return, access to embassies, etc, you can stop paying ALL taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true, unless you're really poor. The IRS won't let you renounce if you have any significant amount of assets.

[/ QUOTE ]
Source?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/...onal/article/0,,id=97245,00.html

http://www.debito.org/naturalization2.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=24084

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=777267

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm having trouble finding anything on these links that supports your claim. In fact I'd already looked at two of them before you posted. (They came up blue. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]) Please quote the portions that you believe support your argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
No response, pvn?

[timsbucktwo]

So many college students are far-left liberals or socialists because they suddenly desire the urge to look clever and have "ideas" but not insult anybody + be popular so they join either of these two cliques.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm having trouble finding anything on these links that supports your claim. In fact I'd already looked at two of them before you posted. (They came up blue. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]) Please quote the portions that you believe support your argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doing your homework for you:

[ QUOTE ]
if you try to renounce (say, because you don't want to pay taxes on lands you have in France that you would like to pass along to your French children), they will treat you like a tax dodger, with sanctions including blacklisting you in the Federal Registry, denying you reentry into the US indefinitely, and taxing your projected US earnings for the next ten years after renouncing.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
A tax bill passed in 1996 establishes a legal presumption that anyone who gives up U.S. citizenship and is valued at more than $500,000 (like several million other Americans) must be doing it to avoid taxes. The IRS will therefore tax them on all earnings it can reach for 10 years after they give up citizenship. For renouncers who move to countries where they have no immediate family, the law pronounces the presumption of tax-ducking "irrebuttable:" No matter how many reasons such people may have for snipping their American umbilicus, the IRS will hear none of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
My intention was to make thetax automatic. If you go, you owe.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
For many renouncers, the tax law does offer one way out. It gives them a chance to refute its knee-jerk presumptions if they live in their new country of citizenship and show strong ties to it. Sound easy? Ask Henry Haugen.

Mr. Haugen is a maritime lawyer in Seattle, and the person he's talking about is a relative in northern Norway. Born in the U.S., she traveled to the old country at 19, met a man, married him, and has lived in his town for almost 50 years.

Loyally, she filed U.S. returns; Norway's high taxes offset anything she owed. But in her 60s, she decided to simplify her estate for the sake of her children, Norwegians all. So she turned in her American passport and asked Mr. Haugen to square things with the IRS.

That's when Mr. Haugen learned that to commute a sentence of tax dodging, the IRS first must see: U.S. and Norwegian income tax returns (translated into English) for three years into the future; theoretical estate returns for the U.S. and Norway hypothesizing death on the date of expatriation; and a schedule of gifts to be made in the coming decade. For starters.

The requisite stack of details (including site of cemetery plot) "is kind of a monstrous thing," says Mr. Haugen. He tallied enough hours compiling it to bill $10,000. Tax lawyers say they'd charge $25,000.

And here's the zinger: Last summer, the IRS announced in an official notice that it couldn't decide if people such as Mr. Haugen's client abandoned the U.S. to escape taxes. It said "the inherently factual and subjective nature of the inquiry" made it too hard.

Renouncers entitled to a decision will stay up in the air; at any time for 10 years, the IRS could suddenly decide to decide. "They've lost track of common sense," Mr. Haugen says.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"In fact," the financial newswire reported, "the U.S. is so serious about taxing non-resident, high-income earners that it passed a law two years ago saying any individual worth more than $500,000 and trying to renounce U.S. citizenship will be deemed to be doing so for tax evasion purposes and will be taxed anyway."

[/ QUOTE ]

Side Tangent:

[ QUOTE ]
Estate taxes – or, as some in the U.S. call them, "death taxes" – are even worse. While a nation like Switzerland taxes a whole estate at around 6 percent, the U.S. levies between 37-55 percent taxes on any amount above $675,000.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is Switzerland afflicted with a plague of "absolute landed hegemony"?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm having trouble finding anything on these links that supports your claim. In fact I'd already looked at two of them before you posted. (They came up blue. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]) Please quote the portions that you believe support your argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doing your homework for you:

[ QUOTE ]
if you try to renounce (say, because you don't want to pay taxes on lands you have in France that you would like to pass along to your French children), they will treat you like a tax dodger, with sanctions including blacklisting you in the Federal Registry, denying you reentry into the US indefinitely, and taxing your projected US earnings for the next ten years after renouncing.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Which has exactly *zero* to do with your point. I said you could quit paying taxes when you quit receiving the benefits of your payment. Now you're saying that the fact that you can't earn money inside the US (a benefit, go figure) after you quit paying taxes somehow bolsters your argument.

[ QUOTE ]
A tax bill passed in 1996 establishes a legal presumption that anyone who gives up U.S. citizenship and is valued at more than $500,000 (like several million other Americans) must be doing it to avoid taxes. The IRS will therefore tax them on all earnings it can reach for 10 years after they give up citizenship. For renouncers who move to countries where they have no immediate family, the law pronounces the presumption of tax-ducking "irrebuttable:" No matter how many reasons such people may have for snipping their American umbilicus, the IRS will hear none of them.

[/ QUOTE ]
It will tax your earnings "that it can reach" - IE, it will not tax your non-American earnings. And that, only if you qualify for what PVN apparently defines the poverty line as: a net worth of $500,000 or more. Yes yes, now I see your point.

[ QUOTE ]
My intention was to make thetax automatic. If you go, you owe.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who are you quoting?

[ QUOTE ]
For many renouncers, the tax law does offer one way out. It gives them a chance to refute its knee-jerk presumptions if they live in their new country of citizenship and show strong ties to it. Sound easy? Ask Henry Haugen.

Mr. Haugen is a maritime lawyer in Seattle, and the person he's talking about is a relative in northern Norway. Born in the U.S., she traveled to the old country at 19, met a man, married him, and has lived in his town for almost 50 years.

Loyally, she filed U.S. returns; Norway's high taxes offset anything she owed. But in her 60s, she decided to simplify her estate for the sake of her children, Norwegians all. So she turned in her American passport and asked Mr. Haugen to square things with the IRS.

That's when Mr. Haugen learned that to commute a sentence of tax dodging, the IRS first must see: U.S. and Norwegian income tax returns (translated into English) for three years into the future; theoretical estate returns for the U.S. and Norway hypothesizing death on the date of expatriation; and a schedule of gifts to be made in the coming decade. For starters.

The requisite stack of details (including site of cemetery plot) "is kind of a monstrous thing," says Mr. Haugen. He tallied enough hours compiling it to bill $10,000. Tax lawyers say they'd charge $25,000.

And here's the zinger: Last summer, the IRS announced in an official notice that it couldn't decide if people such as Mr. Haugen's client abandoned the U.S. to escape taxes. It said "the inherently factual and subjective nature of the inquiry" made it too hard.

[/ QUOTE ]
And her net worth is...?

[ QUOTE ]
Renouncers entitled to a decision will stay up in the air; at any time for 10 years, the IRS could suddenly decide to decide. "They've lost track of common sense," Mr. Haugen says.

[/ QUOTE ]
The IRS lost track of its common sense years ago.

[ QUOTE ]
"In fact," the financial newswire reported, "the U.S. is so serious about taxing non-resident, high-income earners that it passed a law two years ago saying any individual worth more than $500,000 and trying to renounce U.S. citizenship will be deemed to be doing so for tax evasion purposes and will be taxed anyway."

[/ QUOTE ]
Nod poverty. Life's tough when you're worth only a half million (or more).

[ QUOTE ]
Side Tangent:

[ QUOTE ]
Estate taxes – or, as some in the U.S. call them, "death taxes" – are even worse. While a nation like Switzerland taxes a whole estate at around 6 percent, the U.S. levies between 37-55 percent taxes on any amount above $675,000.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is Switzerland afflicted with a plague of "absolute landed hegemony"?

[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't a clue, nor do I know how long the current estate laws of Switzerland have been in effect, nor the rate at which (Swiss) income is taxed generally, nor whether homesteading is permitted and/or employed.

[lehighguy]

Except in economics...

[rpr]

I don't know what a far-left liberal is or a socialist.

National Socialists are fascists, the new conservatives are Trotskyists, classical liberals are libertarians, liberals are socialists, capitalists fund Communism, etc etc.

It think it's designed for obsfucation.

[timsbucktwo]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what a far-left liberal is or a socialist.

National Socialists are fascists, the new conservatives are Trotskyists, classical liberals are libertarians, liberals are socialists, capitalists fund Communism, etc etc.

It think it's designed for obsfucation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please be weary of the difference between National Socialism and national socialism. National socialism isn't necessarily fascist at all, but National Socialism (circa 1930's) might as well have been (plenty of arguments exist that say it actually isn't).

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
Except in economics...

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, I forgot to tell my professors that they can stop saying the word "theory;" economics is a solved field.