- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 60,458
- Reaction score
- 12,357
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Perhaps Thomas Jefferson can answer your question
He lost that argument hay.
Perhaps Thomas Jefferson can answer your question
He lost that argument hay.
Political reality =/= logical debate. My argument is based on ethics, logic, and rights.
I thought you were only concerned with logic and reasoning?
you from 872
Perhaps Thomas Jefferson can answer your question
A capitation is more natural to slavery; a duty on merchandise is more natural to liberty, by reason it has not so direct a relation to the person.
Exactly, as compared with the working class that have to pay a higher rate on their income. You forget that the rich pay a lower tax rate only because we allowed under the promise of job creation. Without job creation there is no reason for the working class to continue to allow the rich to pay a lower rate on their income.
So the more you **** with the working class, the less likely it is they will allow you to continue paying a lower tax rate.
I love how you're acting like taking control over property with the use of government is something you don't actually need to defend. Instead you assume its a good thing and then run from there with your argument. A really weird thing to see so many think the premise of makes sense.
When the uber wealthy are not paying close to the percentage I am paying ... and able to hide millions ...no they are not paying their fair share.
Lost? That's odd, I thought it was just a discussion they were having - not a debate.He lost that argument hay.
Perhaps Thomas Jefferson can answer your question
He lost that argument hay.
HE has a tendency to cite the dissenting opinion as controlling legal authority
The rich white people - which is the same reason the progressive tax didn't end up in the Constitution.If you want to support your progressive tax dreams with such authority remind me of who could vote under the government Jefferson helped establish. And if he actually supported that-why did you wealth stealers have to enact the 16th Amendment?
Hate to tell ya this buddy...but your going to be paying more taxs, even if obama loses. The gop is not going to have both chambers and they just may lose the house
And in the part you quoted is just his empty opinion. There is no reasonings there.
Hate to tell ya this buddy...but your going to be paying more taxs, even if obama loses. The gop is not going to have both chambers and they just may lose the house
If you want to support your progressive tax dreams with such authority remind me of who could vote under the government Jefferson helped establish.
Aahhh! So the wetdream of the far right once again shows up here. To return to the good old days when only monied white men could cast their vote and keep the rest of the nation in their thrall.
Thanks for revealing your true agenda Turtle.
Aahhh! So the wetdream of the far right once again shows up here. To return to the good old days when only monied white men could cast their vote and keep the rest of the nation in their thrall.
Thanks for revealing your true agenda Turtle.
another one of your dishonest interpretations-I merely said if you adopt TJ as your white knight in shining armor in your quest to slay the evil moneyed rich, you are going to have to live with all the peasants and slaves he raped on his quest.
The recent swing, in the other direction, is not so good either. Once you have more people that pay less in federal taxes, than they get in federal benefits, the game of democracy is over; look at Greece, for a good example. The argument that we can limit taxation, without limitting gov't spending to match, is the root of the current problem. Making the argument that whatever the masses demand in federal spending, must be paid for ONLY by an ever shrinking number of our "richest" citizens, at an ever higher rate, will lead to economic collapse. We are now at a point that the federal gov't is allowed to borrow and spend far more than it dare ask for by direct taxation; with a totally unsustainable federal deficit rate of 40%. The basis of the latest "Obama plan" is to tax at 18% of GDP, instead of the current 17% of GDP, yet to continue to spend at a rate of 24% of GDP.
Comparing the USA to Greece is like comparing an Abrams to a Tonka.[...] look at Greece, for a good example. [...]
It's not what the masses demand that controls Fed spending, it's what the economy demands right now to keep things from getting worse than they already are. Fed spending is decreasing, as it was always meant to do after the massive spending required to stop collapse. If the Fed were to "pop the clutch" so to speak, by cutting off all the extra Fed spending at once, the engine would stall again and we'd be back where we started.The recent swing, in the other direction, is not so good either. Once you have more people that pay less in federal taxes, than they get in federal benefits, the game of democracy is over; look at Greece, for a good example. The argument that we can limit taxation, without limitting gov't spending to match, is the root of the current problem. Making the argument that whatever the masses demand in federal spending, must be paid for ONLY by an ever shrinking number of our "richest" citizens, at an ever higher rate, will lead to economic collapse. We are now at a point that the federal gov't is allowed to borrow and spend far more than it dare ask for by direct taxation; with a totally unsustainable federal deficit rate of 40%. The basis of the latest "Obama plan" is to tax at 18% of GDP, instead of the current 17% of GDP, yet to continue to spend at a rate of 24% of GDP.
Political reality =/= logical debate. My argument is based on ethics, logic, and rights. I'm not here to argue to the supreme court and I'm well enough aware of the sixteenth amendment. Are you aware of why it was needed?
there again is two fold stupidity in that post
1) assuming that none of the rich have earned income
2) pretending that earned income and investment income are the same thing
another massive bit of dishonesty on your part