At what tax rate do you officially become a slave....?

[Arianrhod]

Has 2aguy's master cut his foot off and dragged him back to the plantation yet?

 

[JoeB131]

What do you know about sense? We should be worried less about the world and more worried about this country.

Uh, no, we should be concerned about the rest of the world, especially today when the world's problems tend to become our problems, really quickly.

Obviously, you learned nothing from the whole WWII thing.

 

[JoeB131]

Unions argued for the worker in terms of benefits
In other words, they tried to find a suitable scale for how much each labor should be paid with the owner of the corporation.

This is different from the Communists that seized everything and then decided, without guidelines on how to distribute the wealth. In fact, the Communists government of today would question such a method--the people get what the government gives them. The people do what the government tells them.

I rather have the Capitalists system where my employer gleans a few dollars out of my psyche ck than the Communists system in which I have no way to challenge what I'm paid.

Except no one is actually arguing FOR communism. So I'm not sure why you are bringing up that straw man.

Communism has an appeal when everyone else has nothing. The Plutocrats won't be happy until we get there.

20 years ago, do you think a guy like Bernie Sanders would have played nationally?

 

[bripat9643]

Define tax break. Do you mean a write off for business expenses?
And I'm all for a flat tax

10% of everything you make no deductions no exemptions

everyone files an individual return everyone is treated exactly the same

But you don't really want that do you?

No, the rich should pay their fair share. We should not only go back to pre-Reagan tax rates for the rich, we need to bring back estate taxes.

What rule did you use to determine that rate was "fair?"

 

[bripat9643]

Unions argued for the worker in terms of benefits
In other words, they tried to find a suitable scale for how much each labor should be paid with the owner of the corporation.

This is different from the Communists that seized everything and then decided, without guidelines on how to distribute the wealth. In fact, the Communists government of today would question such a method--the people get what the government gives them. The people do what the government tells them.

I rather have the Capitalists system where my employer gleans a few dollars out of my psyche ck than the Communists system in which I have no way to challenge what I'm paid.

Except no one is actually arguing FOR communism. So I'm not sure why you are bringing up that straw man.

Communism has an appeal when everyone else has nothing. The Plutocrats won't be happy until we get there.

20 years ago, do you think a guy like Bernie Sanders would have played nationally?

You and your ilk are always arguing for another step in the direction of communism.

 

[bripat9643]

The envy tax got it

I call it "Sensible policy". You know, back in the day, when the rich paid confiscatory tax rates and working folks were unionized, we were never more prosperous, never more powerful as a nation.

We fought two world wars, put men on the moon, built truly impressive infrastructure. We changed the world, and for the better.

To make your policy work, first we have to bomb the rest of the world back into the stone age.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Define tax break. Do you mean a write off for business expenses?
And I'm all for a flat tax

10% of everything you make no deductions no exemptions

everyone files an individual return everyone is treated exactly the same

But you don't really want that do you?

No, the rich should pay their fair share. We should not only go back to pre-Reagan tax rates for the rich, we need to bring back estate taxes.

What rule did you use to determine that rate was "fair?"

Then envy rule the more jealous Joe is the higher the tax rate

 

[JoeB131]

You and your ilk are always arguing for another step in the direction of communism.

Well, no, not really. The reality is, we are arguing for more steps to become social democracies like Europe. I mean, i know you guys in the South enjoy being the retards of the industrialized world. The South is a Third World Country we unfortunately got tacked onto our ass, and it shows.

To make your policy work, first we have to bomb the rest of the world back into the stone age.

Uh, no. The fact is, the rest of the world recovered within ten years of the war. Things didn't get fucked up until that senile actor decided to start undoing everything FDR did.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Even when you think you know where the money was spent, can anyone point to a clear and precise assessment or report of how effective the government spending was? Simple answer is that government doesn't feel it needs to prove the effectiveness of federal spending.

The burden taxes puts on the taxpayer is clear but surprisingly the government isn't burdened to prove that its spending is effective. Why isn't government being asked to prove the effectiveness of their spending?

"However, their success in achieving these goals may be measured and assessed less often than that of other programs with similar goals. Again, like spending programs, some tax expenditures may be ineffective at achieving their intended purposes, or they may duplicate other federal efforts."

Key Issues: Tax Expenditures

The government continually demonstrates no accountability and no responsibility towards the taxpayer. Fking crazy. All people seem to be able to ask is how much do I have to pay? It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Like this:
"In fact, since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago."
Scribd


One might be led to believe that this expenditure had some other purpose than relieving indigence.