me too. Me too.
Sent from my sgh-t959v using tapatalk
welcome back!!
Originally Posted by Removable Mind
The debt/income ratio created by government is beyond our (We The People) capability to overcome such indebtedness.
It was 20% higher at the end of WWII. What did We the People do about that?
It was 20% higher at the end of WWII. What did We the People do about that?
You are guilty of doing what you constantly whine about your enemies doing - wanting somebody else to pay the bill other than you.
We ALL need to pay more. Starting today.
You babble on and on for yourself alone. You have no license to speak for anyone else at all. I pay more in taxes than you do and find your antisocial commentary to be completely opprobrious. Of course, I also have not just years but decades worth of training and professional experience in relevant fields whereas you have none, so that might contribute as well to a general perception that your posts are just another aspect of the persistent, snot-nosed, ignorance that so permeates and corrupts the right-wing as represented on this board.
In 2007, the top 1% paid $115 billion less in federal income tax than they would have had the Clinton tax rates from a decade earlier still been in effect. That's $115 billion in a single year. Money that was imply handed to the already wealthy free of charge. It was plain old vote-buying Republican welfare-for-the-rich who -- thanks to Bush -- were able to cut in line to feed from the public trough and suck from the public teat. What a disgusting display.
Imagine the good that could have been done with that $115 billion just from that one year? We could have lowered the deficit, decreased the debt and passed less in bills onto our children.
You babble on and on for yourself alone. You have no license to speak for anyone else at all. I pay more in taxes than you do and find your antisocial commentary to be completely opprobrious. Of course, I also have not just years but decades worth of training and professional experience in relevant fields whereas you have none, so that might contribute as well to a general perception that your posts are just another aspect of the persistent, snot-nosed, ignorance that so permeates and corrupts the right-wing as represented on this board.
Money that was imply handed to the already wealthy free of charge.
All this sort of non-responsive nonsense does is confirm everyone's expectation that you will in fact have no actual response to make. $115 billion worth of welfare-for-the-rich Republican vote-buying and feeding at the public trough. Just to the top !%. Just in 2007.the idiocy of your post is that it assumes that the clinton tax rates and money was proper. that is something you cannot prove so the rest of your psychobabble fails as well
All this sort of non-responsive nonsense does is confirm everyone's expectation that you will in fact have no actual response to make. $115 billion worth of welfare-for-the-rich Republican vote-buying and feeding at the public trough. Just to the top !%. Just in 2007.
I may be mistaken, but I actually think that Fang is referring to tax cuts.Are you even aware of what libertarians think of corporate welfare? I would think not since you just assumed TD actually supported such a thing.
Even HE doesn't claim that he earned any of it. Meanwhile, he carries none of the trappings, bearings, or markers typical of a person of actual wealth. You can buy his schtick if you want, but it rings as phony as a three-dollar bill to someone who actually lives there.I buy that TD is rich and earned it, but you? Not a chance. You disprove such a claim every time you say bull**** like the following..
Corporate welfare? This has been about personal income taxes. I see all this howling over peanuts being given to people, even those with plainly evident needs. Where is the outrage over billions upon billions being heaped with no accountabilkity at all onto the rich and the filthy rich, people who essentially have no wants or needs at all?Are you even aware of what libertarians think of corporate welfare? I would think not since you just assumed TD actually supported such a thing.
All this sort of non-responsive nonsense does is confirm everyone's expectation that you will in fact have no actual response to make. $115 billion worth of welfare-for-the-rich Republican vote-buying and feeding at the public trough. Just to the top !%. Just in 2007.
Even HE doesn't claim that he earned any of it. Meanwhile, he carries none of the trappings, bearings, or markers typical of a person of actual wealth. You can buy his schtick if you want, but it rings as phony as a three-dollar bill to someone who actually lives there.
Meanwhile, I've experienced seeing my tax bill plummet by five-figures from one year to the next. And it doesn't go back up the next year either. That's just free money being passed out that neither I nor any wealthy person actually earned or needed. It's simply been handed to us year after year after year after year. While the median family has struggled just to get by. Whatever it is you think you went over before, you messed it up.
I may be mistaken, but I actually think that Fang is referring to tax cuts.
He thinks the government is the primary owner and stakeholder of all wealth-hence his idiotic claims that tax cuts are welfare even though those receiving the tax cuts now pay an even higher share of the tax burden
Even HE doesn't claim that he earned any of it. Meanwhile, he carries none of the trappings, bearings, or markers typical of a person of actual wealth. You can buy his schtick if you want, but it rings as phony as a three-dollar bill to someone who actually lives there.
Meanwhile, I've experienced seeing my tax bill plummet by five-figures from one year to the next. And it doesn't go back up the next year either. That's just free money being passed out that neither I nor any wealthy person actually earned or needed. It's simply been handed to us year after year after year after year. While the median family has struggled just to get by. Whatever it is you think you went over before, you messed it up.
Corporate welfare? This has been about personal income taxes. I see all this howling over peanuts being given to people, even those with plainly evident needs. Where is the outrage over billions upon billions being heaped with no accountabilkity at all onto the rich and the filthy rich, people who essentially have no wants or needs at all?
Because they have lots of guns, and have armed thugs working for them. They are able to do whatever they want.Why should the government be able to tax money inherited by someone? It doesn't matter the amount.
More attempts to appoint yourself chief cook and bottle washer, positions for which you are not well trained, equipped, or qualified. If you would open a book sometime, you would learn that taxes in flat dollar amounts are discriminatory against the poor, and so are taxes that are in flat percentages. Only progressive tax rates are capable of equalizing the burden of taxation, and you might be able to console yourself in the fact that while shares of income taxes paid aren't congruent to shares of income received, they ARE quite close to congruent to shares of wealth actually held. Maybe you have some argument as to why tax-shares should be apportioned to match income-shares rather than wealth-shares, but I doubt it.MOre whining based on the flawed assumption that the richest 1-2%, (the only cohort that pays MORE of the income tax share than their share of the income) are not paying enough
Another contender for the Bad-At-Math Award. The only reason that tax-share increased for the wealthy under Bush was that despite the large and rapid declines in their tax rates, their incomes were going up so fast that they ended up owing more taxes anyway. How awful for them to have that happen!only a hard core statist can claim tax cuts-that resulted in the richest one percent PAYING EVEN A HIGHER SHARE OF THE INCOME TAX Burden-could call such stuff welfare for the rich
Because if you can't....well...obviously the inheritance tax is perfectly fine. Right?
Don't get hung up on a minor detail. Who gives a chit what it's called. Taking a family's wealth is seen as wrong by many, many people, as evidenced by the results of this poll.
Why in God's name does the federal government need to take people's inheritances? Why do federal government "services" cost so much. Maybe if we weren't in so many unconstitutional wars the government wouldn't need to be helping itself to family assets.
Your ideas make a lot of sense, for the year 1800...Federal taxes ought to be minimized to the greatest extent possible. This can be accomplished by limiting the activities of the federal government. The sovereign states have the power to implement any health/safety/welfare programs they wish. The federal government only needs to provide common defense and to regulate commerce among the states. That doesn't really take a whole lot of money. I have no idea why it is involved in half the shiit it currently undertakes, but it needs to trim down and stop taking people's inheritances.
AbsolutelyIf the police FORCE people to follow the law then they aren't doing a very good job. I don't know how it's possible to FORCE people to follow the law?
Laws are created and people either follow them or not.
The primary job of police is to ENFORCE the law...not FORCE the law...and their is a significant difference.