• 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]

As was explained earlier, they are not now and never have been used as general revenue funds. Next...

that's not accurate.... SS revenue is borrowed by the government and , indeed, used as general revenue funds... hell, SS benefits are paid from the general fund.
 
that's not accurate.... SS revenue is borrowed by the government and , indeed, used as general revenue funds... hell, SS benefits are paid from the general fund.

that has been confirmed numerous times on this board in many posts. Looks like the cardinal is not infallible
 
the cardinal exists here solely to yank on your chain.... I wouldn't put any effort into him.

That is one of the most intelligent posts I have seen on this thread or on this board in months
 
and where do they get that money
Work. I'm not aware of too many other places where you can earn minimum wage.

how much do they use in government services on the average
Rather little. Much less than all these high-maintenance rich people.

minimum wage is something most people get out of the way by the time they are out of school.
About 23% of minimum wage workers are below the age of twenty. 100 minus 23 equals 77. About 33% of minimum wage workers are married heads of households. About half of those have children.

Did it ever occur to you that if most people did not have artificially low income taxes because the rich have high income taxes, they might be less likely to demand more government?
People in general haven't any idea of how much or what sort of government to ask for, nor any sort of means for doing any asking. Now rich people? That's a different story. How many Super-PACS's and 504(c)(4)'s do you think foodstamp recipients are funding? How many lobbyists do they have on retainer? How many policy shops do they run? The people doing all the tincupping here are the rich and powerful, not the low- and moderate-income folks.
 
Dammit cardinal. You and your straight facts and no bull**** attitude...

The gods will have to torture you with the psychopathic noobery of the republican masses for this...
 
does anyone have any proof that the top one percent-which pays 40% of the federal income tax and all of the estate tax cost the government more when you net out government spending -taxes paid than the bottom 20% that pays less than 2% of the federal income tax and none of the estate tax?

I get the distinct feeling that no one can prove the rich cost the government more than that bottom quintile. do you know what is the most expensive common thing you can do to cost the government money ? be incarcerated in a federal prison at a young age serving a life or 300+ month sentence. Guess which group makes up most of those costing us 40-50K a year in USP Florence or Terra Haute etc?
 
Dammit cardinal. You and your straight facts and no bull**** attitude...

The gods will have to torture you with the psychopathic noobery of the republican masses for this...

I didn't know you were auditioning for a mini me role? his straight facts have been shown to be nonsense in several instances.
 
this is called projection
You've had every chance and still haven't explained the IF the bailouts came from tax dollars comment. You leave the unmistakable impression that you couldn't actually explain how the bailouts were funded.
 
Last edited:
I didn't know you were auditioning for a mini me role? his straight facts have been shown to be nonsense in several instances.

By... lol...

You?

The number of times you've made a hard reference to a solid article in black and white in discussion that has crossed me likely fits on one hand...

You can't figure out your taxes...

shush...
 
By... lol...

You?

The number of times you've made a hard reference to a solid article in black and white in discussion that has crossed me likely fits on one hand...

You can't figure out your taxes...

shush...



you either don't read many of my posts or you are lying
 
You've had every chance and still haven't explained the IF the bailouts were funded from taxes. You leave the unmistakable impression that you don't actually know how the bailouts were funded.

They're not REALLY taxes... it's that the money belongs to the rich to begin with...

or it's that the rich bailed themselves out with the money they themselves lost...

Or it's that the poor don't pay enough taxes therefore redistributing their money to the rich is fair somehow...

or that the rich print the money... and not the people's government...

oh wait... you can't say that... "The people"

Then you're not referring to 1% people...

I'm sure the 1% appreciates you turtledude.... keep looking for your tax loophole

-Sam.
 
so you admit that the top one percent pay almost 40% of the income tax YET THEY ONLY MAKE 22% of the income. We are dealing with INCOME taxes not wealth taxes. You do understand the difference or is that too much to ask?
Actually, the shares of income taxes paid very closely parallel the shares of wealth held in the economy. Things have been stirred up a little of late due to the calamity of the Great Bush Recession, but even under those oppressive Clinton tax rates, the wealthy were only being asked to pay what they could afford.
 
you either don't read many of my posts or you are lying

You are aware... that most people on these forums take it as some sort-of nicetie that you're Ivy League graduated...

you don't actually portray yourself as a purveyor of any knowledge...

Nor do you have the balls to reference a direct article...

citations don't violate copyright.

If you're Ivy league why are you here?

You don't teach anyone anything.

Perhaps I should get on a princeton law listserv and cut and paste some exchanges of ours...

....quack...quack...
 
your posts do not indicate you are smarter than most of the people on this board.
How would you be in a position to judge a thing like that?

however your posts clearly pretend that you are
It wasn't pretending to note that there was no coal trade on the Ohio River in the 18th century or that the authors of the SS Act plainly stated that it was being funded through taxaton. Those were both in contravention of things that you tried to foist off on people after making them up out of thin air.
 
Actually, the shares of income taxes paid very closely parallel the shares of wealth held in the economy. Things have been stirred up a little of late due to the calamity of the Great Bush Recession, but even under those oppressive Clinton tax rates, the wealthy were only being asked to pay what they could afford.

how can you possibly prove that at all?
 
You are aware... that most people on these forums take it as some sort-of nicetie that you're Ivy League graduated...

you don't actually portray yourself as a purveyor of any knowledge...

Nor do you have the balls to reference a direct article...

citations don't violate copyright.

If you're Ivy league why are you here?

You don't teach anyone anything.

Perhaps I should get on a princeton law listserv and cut and paste some exchanges of ours...

....quack...quack...

I guess the problem involves how different people view this board. I see it as entertainment because I spend most of my "billable hours" proving things to people who matter. They are called judges or juries. so when I file a Memorandum of law supporting say a Fed R. Civ Pro. Rule 56 or 12(b)(6) motion i painstakingly provide the most recent case authority that supports my position with well documented references to the record or the evidence before the court. If you like doing that here go for it but most of the "proof" I see on this board really is not.

saying the rich have more money can be proven. Saying they should pay more taxes cannot be.

saying that "society" would be better off if the rich paid more is not something than can be proven because "better off" is not subject to one definition. Oh BTW I have never been contradicted on any issue involving firearms law or firearms usage. Those are areas where facts actually count-for example when someone says more gun means more crime we can cite the fact that gun ownership in the USA has increased but firearms related crimes have decreased


Princeton doesn't have a law school last I checked.

I am here because this place is amusing. Its fun watching sparrows pretend to be peacocks and friars pretend to be cardinals
 
that's not accurate.... SS revenue is borrowed by the government and , indeed, used as general revenue funds...
See if you can follow the bouncing ball. The revisions of 1983 were designed to accumulate in advance a large pot of funds to be used in helping to pay for the eventual blip in retirement benefits owed to the baby-boom generation. As the result, SS has been sitting ever since on a growing pile of funds (currently $2.7 trillion) that it has no current use for. If nothing else, simple fiduciary responsibility requires that these funds be invested until needed so they might earn a competitive rate of return. For a variety of reasons, the investment vehicle used is US Treasury securities. As with any other investor, what occurs upon the sale of a security is an exchange of assets, not an exchange of ownership. SS has cash and would prefer notes. Treasury has notes and would prefer cash. They help each other out for a while. That's all there is to it.

hell, SS benefits are paid from the general fund.
No, you are likely confused by the fact that SSI and some Medicare benefits are paid from the general fund. No Social Security benefits are.
 
that has been confirmed numerous times on this board in many posts. Looks like the cardinal is not infallible
"This board" is hardly an authority. It is principally a bunch of duped and misled plodders. As I said earlier, just look at some of the things you DO believe. As far as Social Security goes, you are in a position where you may safely take what the Cardinal says as being infallible.
 
the cardinal exists here solely to yank on your chain.... I wouldn't put any effort into him.
You can have your turn as well if you'd like. Just post ignorant and inaccurate things for me to work with. I know you've got it in you.
 
Guess which group makes up most of those costing us 40-50K a year in USP Florence or Terra Haute etc?
There you go again. The per inmate cost of operating the federal prison system in FY 2007 was $22,623. In FY2008, it was $23,651. In FY2009, it was $24,751. Which of those numbers is between $40,000 and $50,000?
 
I didn't know you were auditioning for a mini me role? his straight facts have been shown to be nonsense in several instances.
None of which you are apparently able to recall.
 
Last edited:
how can you possibly prove that at all?
Good lord! Do you think of calculating wealth shares as being an intractable problem or something? Catch up to the Bronze Age at least...
 
I am here because this place is amusing.
You have been here for seven years because you don't have anything better to do. Sad.

Its fun watching sparrows pretend to be peacocks and friars pretend to be cardinals
Not as much fun as watching dropouts pretend to be wealthy lawyers.

Remember by the way that great minds talk about ideas, ordinary minds talk about events, and weak minds talk about people. Where do you fit in?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom