• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Über Rich Renouncing U.S Citizenship as IRS Cracks Down on Tax Evaders [W:209]

TurtleDude said:
so people like me who have earned income of several hundred thousand dollars are going to get massive increases in our benefits?
Click to expand...

How many times do we have to go over this Turtle?


My proposal would pop the cap and freeze current benefit levels. Social Security IS NOT YOUR PERSONAL IRA. It is a national societal program that is to benefit the people of a nation and not merely a return for individuals.

You have your IRA for that.

But then, you knew that since we have discussed this many many many times in many many many threads.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
The founders assumed all rights existed precisely so they wouldn't have to write them down because to do so would have the effect of giving more power to the federal government to tax and spend and pass legislation in order to enforce it.
Click to expand...
That's odd. The founders quite deliberately gave Congress broad powers to tax and spend and to pass whatever other legislation it thought to be in furtherance of the common defense and general welfare. Let's keep in mind that the founders were not founding for the first time and that they were quite cognizant of the fact that their first weak-central-government attempt had come completely acropper in less than a decade. In writing the Constitution of 1787, they were very deliberately intending to create a strong central government that could properly govern over the parochial and self-serving carping of the 13 former colonies. To suggest that these gentlemen were somehow timid in their undertaking belies the document that they created itself, as well as the close ties that existed between its ratification and the subsequent adoption of ten amendments.

Moot said:
And too, it would be a monumental task to write all the rights down not knowing what all the rights are in existence or ever will be in the future...not mention the volumes it would take up.
Click to expand...
This was one of the Federalist arguments against a bill of rights and a chief reason why the Ninth Amendment was ultimately included in it.

Moot said:
The beauty of the constitution is in its simplicity. So yes, the notion of "assumed rights" is still alive and well in the constitution that limits the powers of government to what is written.
Click to expand...
What is written happens to be that the powers of government may expand to what is necessary and appropriate to the conditions of the times. There certainly were and still are rights mandated within the Constitution that are not in our time and were not in the time of the founders yet contemplated. The scope of the rights is no less elastic than the scope of the powers.
 
TurtleDude said:
more trustafarian nonsense. why not confine all of your smarmy nonsense into one post rather than wasting so much space with multip0le rants. we get the fact that you seek benefit from others paying more taxes. Speaking of swamping and befuddling the minds of the gullible-that is what effete leftwingers adopting airs of superiority do-they pretend that they have assumed the mantel of savior of the poor in order to gain the power from the support of the masses, when in reality, those who assume elite status are merely using the poor as pawns
Click to expand...
More of that vegan-style posting. Does not contain any real meat at all. An actually educated poster could have come up with something more than yet another helping the same old prepackaged slop all over again. But no...
 
haymarket said:
But then, you knew that since we have discussed this many many many times in many many many threads.
Click to expand...
See, there's your difference between those who are interested in learning and those who are interested in spouting.
 
Grant said:
Actually the majority of Americans are tax evaders while 'the rich' have to carry them. You didn't know this?
Click to expand...

That's what the rich boot lickers like to think, but poor and middle class can't afford to change nationalities to avoid taxation.
 
haymarket said:
The Gilded Age of the last half of the 1800's was a veritable enlightened workers paradise compared to your ideas.
Click to expand...

Actually it was the period of the middle class creation in America, same thing happened in Bismark's Germany in the same time frame, while England started it's long decline into the rump state that it is.

What is the connection between all 3 stories? Free Trade and Protectionism. American and Germany adopted Protectionism, England embraced Free Trade.
 
CriticalThought said:
The average American hasn't yet figured out that wealthy Americans no longer view themselves as Americans. They view themselves as belonging to the "international community". Nationalism is just a tool to control the impoverished and ignorant. It always has been and always will be, hence why movements like the Tea Party gather around it.
Click to expand...

Funny, you think the Tea Party are nationalists.

They aren't, the Tea Party is caucasian globalists who seem to be confused as to why the economy is crashing, just like the Democratic identity is non-caucasian globalist who seem to be confused as to why the economy is crashing.

globalism and nationalism are mutually exclusive.
 
Last edited:
ThePlayDrive said:
This is mine and it's true. Got a problem with the truth?
Click to expand...

From the bigger perspective, no doubt it's true.
But from an individual rights perspective, I have to tell you, me, my wife, my daughter, my friends and family, are not replaceable. Sorry to break it to you! Goes back to what you value ThePlayDrive. Do you value your life, or not? If life has no value (i.e. everyone is replaceable), then please leave me your stuff when you check out :p
 
haymarket said:
How many times do we have to go over this Turtle?


My proposal would pop the cap and freeze current benefit levels. Social Security IS NOT YOUR PERSONAL IRA. It is a national societal program that is to benefit the people of a nation and not merely a return for individuals.

You have your IRA for that.

But then, you knew that since we have discussed this many many many times in many many many threads.
Click to expand...

noting new-just more taxes on those who already pay most of the taxes.
 
Cardinal Fang said:
See, there's your difference between those who are interested in learning and those who are interested in spouting.
Click to expand...

yeah what we learn is that some people think the government actually is entitled to even more of our money than it takes now.

highly edifying? not at all.
 
haymarket said:
So what? They have most of the money too. It works out.
Click to expand...


yes, the from each according to their ability crap again. Guess what, SS was never intended as an unlimited income redistribution scheme. You already have that with the FIT and the estate/death tax. YOur solution to every problem is not to cut government spending or waste but to demand a minority be taxed more and more so your masters can use the money to buy the votes of their minions.
 
TurtleDude said:
yes, the from each according to their ability crap again. Guess what, SS was never intended as an unlimited income redistribution scheme. You already have that with the FIT and the estate/death tax. YOur solution to every problem is not to cut government spending or waste but to demand a minority be taxed more and more so your masters can use the money to buy the votes of their minions.
Click to expand...

It cannot be any other way.

I have asked you this over and over and over again and YOU ALWAYS FAIL TO REPLY. Lets try again:

How could it be any other way be each contributing according to their ability? One cannot be asked to contribute MORE than they are ABLE to. That would make no sense at all.

Your reply ignores the fact that I have repeatedly advocated for ALL Americans earning dollar one be taxed and ALL Americans see an increase in taxes.

It also ignores my repeated statement that I would cut $300 billion from the budget in one year alone.

Who are your masters Turtle? I have none. But you use the word so often its as if you use it constantly in your daily life speaking to others over you. So who are your own masters Turtle?
 
haymarket said:
It cannot be any other way.

I have asked you this over and over and over again and YOU ALWAYS FAIL TO REPLY. Lets try again:

How could it be any other way be each contributing according to their ability? One cannot be asked to contribute MORE than they are ABLE to. That would make no sense at all.

Your reply ignores the fact that I have repeatedly advocated for ALL Americans earning dollar one be taxed and ALL Americans see an increase in taxes.

It also ignores my repeated statement that I would cut $300 billion from the budget in one year alone.

Who are your masters Turtle? I have none. But you use the word so often its as if you use it constantly in your daily life speaking to others over you. So who are your own masters Turtle?
Click to expand...

when the ponzi scheme was set up, it was clearly akin to a forced insurance program -it never would have passed if there was unlimited exposure to all income without a rising scale of benefits.

yes you wnat small increases on the many with MASSIVE increases on those who already pay a massive amount of the taxes.

what exactly is the increase in taxes on someone who has earned income of one million a year from your SS scheme alone?

Let's get one thing clear, you believe that the current government spending is justified and thus the government is rightfully entitled to billions more of our wealth

and finally, your scheme does nothing to actually cause the majority to demand less spending
 
MusicAdventurer said:
My hope is that after the greedy all leave, the industrious and empathetic will rise in their place.
Click to expand...

How much money do you make? I think that if you make more than $20,000 you are simply being greedy and should be forced to give the rest of your money to those who are greedy like yourself.

There are certainly "spoiled kid" here but I think you are pointing your finger in the wrong direction.

Moot said:
Governments exist by the will of the people. All rights are assumed to exist and the people give up certain rights to the government in exchange for it's protection of all their other rights.
Click to expand...

That is the contemporary accepted definition so let's run with it. If government exists at the will of the people and the people voluntarily give up certain rights in exchange for specified protections and whatever else they claim, then why can't a person retract his acceptance without punishment? The existence of punishments (in the form of legislation such as the Ex-PATRIOT Act) and hostility from people such as yourself is de facto ownership (i.e. slavery).

The choice is either a free country formed by the voluntary agreement of its free citizens or a police state formed without the consent of the tax slaves therein. You can't have both.

Cardinal Fang said:
I'd be more likely to find that you rely on a completely fabricated and fictionalized Constitution and definitions of words like "freedom" and "consent" that have no actual bearing to conditions in the real world.
Click to expand...

I rely on the DoI and Constitution as recorded in the historical record; which versions do you propose we base our debate on?

You are absolutely correct that "freedom" and "consent" have no bearing to the real world because we live in a police state where they do no exist outside of our imaginations.

Cardinal Fang said:
The Declaration of Independence is not a part of our law.
Click to expand...

So what? The DoI is the explanation for why the colonists declared independence. As such, it is much more relevant to this discussion than the Constitution. Perhaps you need to review what we have been discussing.

Cardinal Fang said:
The founders quite deliberately gave Congress broad powers to tax and spend and to pass whatever other legislation it thought to be in furtherance of the common defense and general welfare.
Click to expand...

Pure bastardization of these clauses. Common defense and general welfare simply means that those laws which are passed with respect to the powers specifically delegated to the Congress must apply equally to all states. In other words, the federal government could not pass laws restricting South Carolina for the benefit of New York or other such legislation; it must apply to the nation as a whole. This is ignored by those who desire an all-powerful central government.

Matt Foley said:
That's what the rich boot lickers like to think, but poor and middle class can't afford to change nationalities to avoid taxation.
Click to expand...

Then is the actual problem the fact that rich "boot lickers" are able to escape this taxation or that everyone is subject to this affront in the first place? It seems odd to attack those who are able to escape this abuse rather than attack those who transgress upon us...
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah what we learn is that some people think the government actually is entitled to even more of our money than it takes now.
Click to expand...
Considering that it takes less now than it has in fifty years, that would appear to be self-evident. Imagine needing help with the self-evident stuff. Wow!
 
Cardinal Fang said:
Considering that it takes less now than it has in fifty years, that would appear to be self-evident. Imagine needing help with the self-evident stuff. Wow!
Click to expand...

You can lay out the obvious... doesnt mean they're going to drink the water you lead them to.
 
MKULTRABOY said:
You can lay out the obvious... doesnt mean they're going to drink the water you lead them to.
Click to expand...

what is obvious to most people is that there are individuals who think that they are entitled to the wealth of others and those individuals go through all sorts of machinations trying to hide their greed by pretending society is helped by parasites
 
TurtleDude said:
what is obvious to most people is that there are individuals who think that they are entitled to the wealth of others and those individuals go through all sorts of machinations trying to hide their greed by pretending society is helped by parasites
Click to expand...

Dude, you're whack...

you've been repeating yourself for the 2 years I've been here...

and it's not like fox news didn't teach you how to flap lip like that.
 
Last edited:
MKULTRABOY said:
Dude, you're whack...

you've been repeating yourself for the 2 years I've been here...

and it's not like fox news didn't teach you how to flap lip like that.
Click to expand...


yeah none of the wealth stealers on the left ever repeat themselves. When the moon bat left spews the same garbage over and over I am going to point out why its garbage over and over.

I have a great idea-if people Like Cardinal Fang or Haymarket think the government really needs more money they can pay more taxes themselves rather than spending so much time trying to convince themselves why other people should fund the crap they want
 
TurtleDude said:
what is obvious to most people is that there are individuals who think that they are entitled to the wealth of others and those individuals go through all sorts of machinations trying to hide their greed by pretending society is helped by parasites
Click to expand...

And you rob people of their wealth via their labor.....Well at least you would like to do that.
 
TNAR said:
I rely on the DoI and Constitution as recorded in the historical record;
Click to expand...
No, you don't. You deliberately rely on a funhouse mirror distortion of the nation's founding documents, one in which words are simply lifted out of any logical context and given absurdly corrupted definitions and implications.

TNAR said:
You are absolutely correct that "freedom" and "consent" have no bearing to the real world because we live in a police state where they do no exist outside of our imaginations.
Click to expand...
Yeah, a "police state". We've got that going on, don't we. Just another departure from the bounds of rationality.

TNAR said:
So what? The DoI is the explanation for why the colonists declared independence.
Click to expand...
It was a rationalization for traitorous rebellion written for the benefit of a continental audience from whom much funding and other sorts of assistance would surely be needed if this enterpise of revolution were to have any hope of success.

TNAR said:
As such, it is much more relevant to this discussion than the Constitution. Perhaps you need to review what we have been discussing.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps you need to delve into some actual history instead of the pre-chewed propaganda you've apparently been working on.

TNAR said:
Pure bastardization of these clauses. Common defense and general welfare simply means that those laws which are passed with respect to the powers specifically delegated to the Congress must apply equally to all states. In other words, the federal government could not pass laws restricting South Carolina for the benefit of New York or other such legislation; it must apply to the nation as a whole. This is ignored by those who desire an all-powerful central government.
Click to expand...
What a crock. There is not now and never has been any need for a power to have been specifically "delegated" for it to exist. You've obviosuly not read any history at all. And of course, federal enterprises routinely tax one state in order to benefit another. Something as plain and simple as federal disaster assistance might have come into a mind unclogged by such mounds of ridiculous right-wing rhetoric.
 
winston53660 said:
And you rob people of their wealth via their labor.....Well at least you would like to do that.
Click to expand...


The concept of contract seems to elude you
 
TurtleDude said:
I have a great idea-if people Like Cardinal Fang or Haymarket think the government really needs more money they can pay more taxes themselves rather than spending so much time trying to convince themselves why other people should fund the crap they want
Click to expand...
Those of us who actually DO have some wealth are a lot less disturbed by the prospect of higher taxes than all those carping phonies out there. We used to pay much higher taxes than we do now, you know. And we were still rich. If we do not restore the numbers and purcahsing power of the middle class, we are going nowhere. Rich people are not the horses.
 
Cardinal Fang said:
Those of us who actually DO have some wealth are a lot less disturbed by the prospect of higher taxes than all those carping phonies out there. We used to pay much higher taxes than we do now, you know. And we were still rich. If we do not restore the numbers and purcahsing power of the middle class, we are going nowhere. Rich people are not the horses.
Click to expand...


I don't believe your nonsense. the only rich who bray for higher taxes tend to be those who believe that such a system actually insulates their position or those who never earned a dime of it in the first place.

and the most idiotic claim of them all-taxing the rich more somehow helps the middle class
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom