Random Truths

[PaintMyHouse]

Once again, pick any source you like, the history is the same.

Indian history was never written... Word of mouth.

Anyway... No matter who you are it's a sad thing depending on the federal government for anything... It's just like any owing debt it's always a slave and slave owner relationship.

The real authority is the bible...

So corporations and capitalists, not to mention nations, should not go into debt?

It's alway best not to...

I am 100% debt free, have been for years... Feels great.

Really, really easy to do... Don't spend more that you make. Simplest of arithmetic.

The world would be a far better place with no debt...

Anyway I am off... Will be back.

Remember buy more guns and ammunition

The world as it is would not exist without debt. That's what built, and has saved it, such as it is.

Now I have heard everything... Debt has saved the world.

Your a funny guy

That's how we paid to fight WWII.

And that's only one example of why debt is both necessary and even good.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How about another dose of 'Random Truths'?

Sure:

Expecting liberty in a nation run by Liberals is like expecting a milkshake made with lactose free milk.

Liberty comes from Liberalism, and Liberals.

Pleeeezzzzze.....tell that lie that you've become famous for...the one where you claim that your kinds of Liberal...(read 'socialist') ...were the folks who founded this once great nation.

Pleeeezzzze, Uncle Leftie....

I love correcting it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

How about another dose of 'Random Truths'?

Sure:

Expecting liberty in a nation run by Liberals is like expecting a milkshake made with lactose free milk.

Liberty comes from Liberalism, and Liberals.

Pleeeezzzzze.....tell that lie that you've become famous for...the one where you claim that your kind of Liberal...(read 'socialist') ...were the folks who founded this once great nation.

Pleeeezzzze, Uncle Leftie....

I love correcting it.

I'm a liberal, not a socialist, and you are not even an American in name only.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How about another dose of 'Random Truths'?

Sure:

Expecting liberty in a nation run by Liberals is like expecting a milkshake made with lactose free milk.



A one question definition of the political divide: which is the greater threat, Radical Islam, or carbon emissions?

No, In a nation run by liberals you actually get to know that the ingredients of your milkshake have been inspected and will not make you sick. You will also have a diverse choice of flavors (not just vanilla) and we can all sit at the same lunch counter together and drink your milkshake for you.

All this and you can still run from your previous Random Thoughts that you were owned on.

Who created the EPA, you dunce?

 

[PoliticalChic]

How about another dose of 'Random Truths'?

Sure:

Expecting liberty in a nation run by Liberals is like expecting a milkshake made with lactose free milk.

Liberty comes from Liberalism, and Liberals.

Pleeeezzzzze.....tell that lie that you've become famous for...the one where you claim that your kind of Liberal...(read 'socialist') ...were the folks who founded this once great nation.

Pleeeezzzze, Uncle Leftie....

I love correcting it.

I'm a liberal, not a socialist, and you are not even an American in name only.

That's close enough.

Now for the truth.


The folks called 'Liberals' today are what was known as Socialists.

"How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels
by Jim Peron

1. Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.
2. The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
   1. Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.
3. [Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism.
4. [Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments."

Liars who support big government command and control economy, and collectivism love to claim the title 'Liberal'...but they are socialists.
Like Uncle Leftie.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Who created the EPA...

Congress, but Nixon signed it into law. And you meant the FDA, which was Teddy Roosevelt...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

How about another dose of 'Random Truths'?

Sure:

Expecting liberty in a nation run by Liberals is like expecting a milkshake made with lactose free milk.

Liberty comes from Liberalism, and Liberals.

Pleeeezzzzze.....tell that lie that you've become famous for...the one where you claim that your kind of Liberal...(read 'socialist') ...were the folks who founded this once great nation.

Pleeeezzzze, Uncle Leftie....

I love correcting it.

I'm a liberal, not a socialist, and you are not even an American in name only.

That's close enough.

Now for the truth.


The folks called 'Liberals' today are what was known as Socialists.

"How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels
by Jim Peron

1. Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.
2. The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
   1. Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.
3. [Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism.
4. [Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism. "

I love rubbing your face in it, Uncle Leftie!

Don't ever change.

Your cut and pastes don't change the fact that I'm a liberal, and you are a foreign moron.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How about another dose of 'Random Truths'?

Sure:

Expecting liberty in a nation run by Liberals is like expecting a milkshake made with lactose free milk.

Liberty comes from Liberalism, and Liberals.

Pleeeezzzzze.....tell that lie that you've become famous for...the one where you claim that your kind of Liberal...(read 'socialist') ...were the folks who founded this once great nation.

Pleeeezzzze, Uncle Leftie....

I love correcting it.

I'm a liberal, not a socialist, and you are not even an American in name only.

That's close enough.

Now for the truth.


The folks called 'Liberals' today are what was known as Socialists.

"How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels
by Jim Peron

1. Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.
2. The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
   1. Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.
3. [Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism.
4. [Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism. "

I love rubbing your face in it, Uncle Leftie!

Don't ever change.

Your cut and pastes don't change the fact that I'm a liberal, and you are a foreign moron.

Nah....you're a liar and a socialist....or is that redundant.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Who created the EPA...

Congress, but Nixon signed it into law. And you meant the FDA, which was Teddy Roosevelt...

This is the sort of thing that Sociaists/ModernLiberals/Democrats do....

"De Blasio Just Made It Illegal to Run the AC With a Door or Window Open
Many New Yorkers find such air-conditioned breezes refreshing. But Mayor Bill de Blasio has never cared for them.

“It’s always been a pet peeve of mine,” said de Blasio at a City Hall ceremony Wednesday, just before signing a law that will require all shops and restaurants in New York City to keep their front doors and windows closed while their air conditioners are running.

“It’s the middle of the summer in New York City, it’s 90 degrees, you walk by a store, and the door is wide open and the air-conditioning is blasting,” the mayor added. “That’s wasting a lot of energy. That’s having its own impact on global warming.”
De Blasio Just Made It Illegal to Run the AC With a Door or Window Open



Time to tell these Democrats/Progressives/Liberals/Socialists to mind their business.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How about another dose of 'Random Truths'?

Sure:

Expecting liberty in a nation run by Liberals is like expecting a milkshake made with lactose free milk.

Liberty comes from Liberalism, and Liberals.

Pleeeezzzzze.....tell that lie that you've become famous for...the one where you claim that your kind of Liberal...(read 'socialist') ...were the folks who founded this once great nation.

Pleeeezzzze, Uncle Leftie....

I love correcting it.

I'm a liberal, not a socialist, and you are not even an American in name only.

That's close enough.

Now for the truth.


The folks called 'Liberals' today are what was known as Socialists.

"How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels
by Jim Peron

1. Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.
2. The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
   1. Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.
3. [Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism.
4. [Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism. "

I love rubbing your face in it, Uncle Leftie!

Don't ever change.

Your cut and pastes don't change the fact that I'm a liberal, and you are a foreign moron.

Folks are catching on to you socialists, Uncle Leftie...

"The so-called “progressives” love to talk about how their policies will create a worker’s paradise, but then why is it that day after day, month after month, year after year, people are fleeing liberal blue states for conservative red states?

The new Census data on where we live and where we moved to in 2014 shows that the top seven states with the biggest percentage increase in in-migration from other states are in order: North Dakota, Nevada, South Carolina, Colorado, Florida, Arizona, and Texas. All of these states are red, except Colorado, which is purple.

Meanwhile, the leading exodus states of the continental states in percentage terms were Alaska, New York, Illinois, Connecticut, New Mexico, New Jersey, and Kansas. All of these states are blue, except Alaska and Kansas."
Nearly 1,000 People Move From Blue States to Red States Every Day. Here's Why.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Liberty comes from Liberalism, and Liberals.

Pleeeezzzzze.....tell that lie that you've become famous for...the one where you claim that your kind of Liberal...(read 'socialist') ...were the folks who founded this once great nation.

Pleeeezzzze, Uncle Leftie....

I love correcting it.

I'm a liberal, not a socialist, and you are not even an American in name only.

That's close enough.

Now for the truth.


The folks called 'Liberals' today are what was known as Socialists.

"How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels
by Jim Peron

1. Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.
2. The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
   1. Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.
3. [Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism.
4. [Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism. "

I love rubbing your face in it, Uncle Leftie!

Don't ever change.

Your cut and pastes don't change the fact that I'm a liberal, and you are a foreign moron.

Nah....you're a liar and a socialist....or is that redundant.

I'm neither, I'm a liberal, the only real Americans...

 

[Wry Catcher]

You quote a lot of things but you show nothing

It's quite simple, government is funded by taxes. If you have a progressive tax system and replace that with a flat tax system that means the poor pay more and the rich less and that inceases income inequality. Unless you're an anarchist and want to abolish government of course, then you don't need taxes anymore.

Nothing wrong with supporting that, just don't be so hypocritical about it. Just admit that you love the 1% and hate the poor.

You may not being looking at this question from the proper angle, first off understand that "the rich" absolutely LOVE our current tax system and why wouldn't they? they created it. They have the money, power and connections to basically write any tax system they want, what they've done is created a system that is so full of loopholes, exemptions and credits that only they have the means to engage the necessary legion of lawyers to take full advantage of it, they also get the added bonus of being able to point to top marginal rates (which they never pay) and say "See! look at how high our income tax rates are!". Proponents of so-called "progressive taxation" in the name of fairness are actually advocating a system that is designed to be anything but "fair", it's a system that the average tax payer can never in their wildest dreams play on a level playing field in and it's a system that treats their dollars as less valuable then the dollars earned by those farther up the economic ladder.

A flat tax on the other hand is far more expensive for "the rich" in terms of real dollars, goodbye loopholes, goodbye exemptions, goodbye credits, goodbye playing games with income timelines, goodbye economic behavior manipulation, that's not what they want because it's actually "fair" since it treats every dollar they make exactly the same as every dollar everybody else makes. As far as the poor go it would be counter productive to tax their income at all, people below the poverty line require a flat income tax rate of 0% since taxing their income is a roadblock to getting them to where everybody wants them to be (above the poverty line). Keep in mind that if "the rich" really wanted a flat tax system, we'd have a flat tax system post haste because they're the ones that are really calling the shots right now but they don't want it which is the reason that we probably aren't ever going to get it.

Lastly just imagine what we could do without having to waste the billions of man hours that go into tax preparation & enforcement every year, if that labor actually went into something PRODUCTIVE.

While I don't agree that "the rich" prefer our current tax system or that they effectively write our tax laws, I do agree that a simplified system would free many hours for more productive work or leisure.

"The rich" - those earning over $450,000/yr (fewer than 2% of American households) - currently pay 46% of all personal income tax collected by the US Treasury.

Pretending our progressive tax system benefits "the rich" is disingenuous at best.

Pretending those who pay 46% of their income is unfair(?) is a half-truth as well as a lie of omission. Why, I'll let you answer:

Would you prefer to receive in Salary $1,000,000 and keep 54% of it, or to earn $50,000 and keep 85% of it?

Of course you would like to keep 85% of the million, and in short order we would make the transition from a democratic republic (or what's left of ours) into a pure plutocracy (which the current Supreme Court five member conservative majority has already paved the road for such a course).

Like a good lefty you insist we punish success ... probably the single most self-defeating function of leftism.

The point remains "the rich" pay most of the personal federal income tax in the US with the bottom 48% paying none of it.
Zippo. Zilch. Nada.
They get a free ride.

Once again a simple use of a statistic within the meaning of "there are lies, damn lies and statistics".

Q. How do "the rich" earn their income, and what do they do with it

Q. What is the mean income of those 48%

Q. How many hours per week does the former put into work vis a vis the lower 48%

Q. How much of their net income does the top 1% spent on Maint St. vis a vis the bottom 48%

Q. What is the cost of a four year university degree

Q. Explain how trickle down trickles down (framed by your answer in what do "the rich" do with their money

 

[Wry Catcher]

Pleeeezzzzze.....tell that lie that you've become famous for...the one where you claim that your kind of Liberal...(read 'socialist') ...were the folks who founded this once great nation.

Pleeeezzzze, Uncle Leftie....

I love correcting it.

I'm a liberal, not a socialist, and you are not even an American in name only.

That's close enough.

Now for the truth.


The folks called 'Liberals' today are what was known as Socialists.

"How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels
by Jim Peron

1. Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.
2. The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
   1. Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.
3. [Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism.
4. [Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism. "

I love rubbing your face in it, Uncle Leftie!

Don't ever change.

Your cut and pastes don't change the fact that I'm a liberal, and you are a foreign moron.

Nah....you're a liar and a socialist....or is that redundant.

I'm neither, I'm a liberal, the only real Americans...

PC thinks, excuse me, PC believes she's sane, and everyone who questions her reality isn't. At least she doesn't throw bombs.

 

[SAYIT]

You quote a lot of things but you show nothing

It's quite simple, government is funded by taxes. If you have a progressive tax system and replace that with a flat tax system that means the poor pay more and the rich less and that inceases income inequality. Unless you're an anarchist and want to abolish government of course, then you don't need taxes anymore.

Nothing wrong with supporting that, just don't be so hypocritical about it. Just admit that you love the 1% and hate the poor.

You may not being looking at this question from the proper angle, first off understand that "the rich" absolutely LOVE our current tax system and why wouldn't they? they created it. They have the money, power and connections to basically write any tax system they want, what they've done is created a system that is so full of loopholes, exemptions and credits that only they have the means to engage the necessary legion of lawyers to take full advantage of it, they also get the added bonus of being able to point to top marginal rates (which they never pay) and say "See! look at how high our income tax rates are!". Proponents of so-called "progressive taxation" in the name of fairness are actually advocating a system that is designed to be anything but "fair", it's a system that the average tax payer can never in their wildest dreams play on a level playing field in and it's a system that treats their dollars as less valuable then the dollars earned by those farther up the economic ladder.

A flat tax on the other hand is far more expensive for "the rich" in terms of real dollars, goodbye loopholes, goodbye exemptions, goodbye credits, goodbye playing games with income timelines, goodbye economic behavior manipulation, that's not what they want because it's actually "fair" since it treats every dollar they make exactly the same as every dollar everybody else makes. As far as the poor go it would be counter productive to tax their income at all, people below the poverty line require a flat income tax rate of 0% since taxing their income is a roadblock to getting them to where everybody wants them to be (above the poverty line). Keep in mind that if "the rich" really wanted a flat tax system, we'd have a flat tax system post haste because they're the ones that are really calling the shots right now but they don't want it which is the reason that we probably aren't ever going to get it.

Lastly just imagine what we could do without having to waste the billions of man hours that go into tax preparation & enforcement every year, if that labor actually went into something PRODUCTIVE.

While I don't agree that "the rich" prefer our current tax system or that they effectively write our tax laws, I do agree that a simplified system would free many hours for more productive work or leisure.

"The rich" - those earning over $450,000/yr (fewer than 2% of American households) - currently pay 46% of all personal income tax collected by the US Treasury.

Pretending our progressive tax system benefits "the rich" is disingenuous at best.

Pretending those who pay 46% of their income is unfair(?) is a half-truth as well as a lie of omission. Why, I'll let you answer:

Would you prefer to receive in Salary $1,000,000 and keep 54% of it, or to earn $50,000 and keep 85% of it?

Of course you would like to keep 85% of the million, and in short order we would make the transition from a democratic republic (or what's left of ours) into a pure plutocracy (which the current Supreme Court five member conservative majority has already paved the road for such a course).

Like a good lefty you insist we punish success ... probably the single most self-defeating function of leftism.

The point remains "the rich" pay most of the personal federal income tax in the US with the bottom 48% paying none of it.
Zippo. Zilch. Nada.
They get a free ride.

Once again a simple use of a statistic within the meaning of "there are lies, damn lies and statistics".

Q. How do "the rich" earn their income, and what do they do with it

Q. What is the mean income of those 48%

Q. How many hours per week does the former put into work vis a vis the lower 48%

Q. How much of their net income does the top 1% spent on Maint St. vis a vis the bottom 48%

Q. What is the cost of a four year university degree

Q. Explain how trickle down trickles down (framed by your answer in what do "the rich" do with their money

You can wiggle and squirm all you like. America's top earners carry the tax load while the bottom not only gets a free ride, they take cash out of the till.

The top 20% - those making over $134,300/yr - now pays 84% of all federal personal income taxes collected while the bottom 20% are net tax receivers ... what can be described either as gov't sponsored wealth redistribution or punishing success.

 

[HappyJoy]

How about another dose of 'Random Truths'?

Sure:

Expecting liberty in a nation run by Liberals is like expecting a milkshake made with lactose free milk.



A one question definition of the political divide: which is the greater threat, Radical Islam, or carbon emissions?

No, In a nation run by liberals you actually get to know that the ingredients of your milkshake have been inspected and will not make you sick. You will also have a diverse choice of flavors (not just vanilla) and we can all sit at the same lunch counter together and drink your milkshake for you.

All this and you can still run from your previous Random Thoughts that you were owned on.

Who created the EPA, you dunce?

Nixon, but what does that have to do with anything? Other than it being one of those agencies that conservatives talk about dismantling. I'm talking about government agencies that regulate food and set standards. FDA, USDA and local health departments.

Dunce?

 

[Wry Catcher]

You may not being looking at this question from the proper angle, first off understand that "the rich" absolutely LOVE our current tax system and why wouldn't they? they created it. They have the money, power and connections to basically write any tax system they want, what they've done is created a system that is so full of loopholes, exemptions and credits that only they have the means to engage the necessary legion of lawyers to take full advantage of it, they also get the added bonus of being able to point to top marginal rates (which they never pay) and say "See! look at how high our income tax rates are!". Proponents of so-called "progressive taxation" in the name of fairness are actually advocating a system that is designed to be anything but "fair", it's a system that the average tax payer can never in their wildest dreams play on a level playing field in and it's a system that treats their dollars as less valuable then the dollars earned by those farther up the economic ladder.

A flat tax on the other hand is far more expensive for "the rich" in terms of real dollars, goodbye loopholes, goodbye exemptions, goodbye credits, goodbye playing games with income timelines, goodbye economic behavior manipulation, that's not what they want because it's actually "fair" since it treats every dollar they make exactly the same as every dollar everybody else makes. As far as the poor go it would be counter productive to tax their income at all, people below the poverty line require a flat income tax rate of 0% since taxing their income is a roadblock to getting them to where everybody wants them to be (above the poverty line). Keep in mind that if "the rich" really wanted a flat tax system, we'd have a flat tax system post haste because they're the ones that are really calling the shots right now but they don't want it which is the reason that we probably aren't ever going to get it.

Lastly just imagine what we could do without having to waste the billions of man hours that go into tax preparation & enforcement every year, if that labor actually went into something PRODUCTIVE.

While I don't agree that "the rich" prefer our current tax system or that they effectively write our tax laws, I do agree that a simplified system would free many hours for more productive work or leisure.

"The rich" - those earning over $450,000/yr (fewer than 2% of American households) - currently pay 46% of all personal income tax collected by the US Treasury.

Pretending our progressive tax system benefits "the rich" is disingenuous at best.

Pretending those who pay 46% of their income is unfair(?) is a half-truth as well as a lie of omission. Why, I'll let you answer:

Would you prefer to receive in Salary $1,000,000 and keep 54% of it, or to earn $50,000 and keep 85% of it?

Of course you would like to keep 85% of the million, and in short order we would make the transition from a democratic republic (or what's left of ours) into a pure plutocracy (which the current Supreme Court five member conservative majority has already paved the road for such a course).

Like a good lefty you insist we punish success ... probably the single most self-defeating function of leftism.

The point remains "the rich" pay most of the personal federal income tax in the US with the bottom 48% paying none of it.
Zippo. Zilch. Nada.
They get a free ride.

Once again a simple use of a statistic within the meaning of "there are lies, damn lies and statistics".

Q. How do "the rich" earn their income, and what do they do with it

Q. What is the mean income of those 48%

Q. How many hours per week does the former put into work vis a vis the lower 48%

Q. How much of their net income does the top 1% spent on Maint St. vis a vis the bottom 48%

Q. What is the cost of a four year university degree

Q. Explain how trickle down trickles down (framed by your answer in what do "the rich" do with their money

You can wiggle and squirm all you like. America's top earners carry the tax load while the bottom not only gets a free ride, they take cash out of the till.

The top 20% - those making over $134,300/yr - now pays 84% of all federal personal income taxes collected while the bottom 20% are net tax receivers ... what can be described either as gov't sponsored wealth redistribution or punishing success.

Hey asshole, my family income is over 134,300 per year and we are not punished. Fuck you and your bullshit.

 

[Donald Polish]

The truth is that there is no truth at all. The Black Lion knows about it though no one can be so sure about it.

 

[NightFox]

Hey asshole, my family income is over 134,300 per year and we are not punished. Fuck you and your bullshit.

Hmmm... looks like somebody needs to spend a little time in anger management class.

 

[edthecynic]

I got 'em from a website of declared communist goals...

The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals

LIAR!

You got 'em from a Right-wing whacko site rense.com

I note that you were unable to deny the truth of the post, and the premise: the aims of the communists, and the Democrat Party, are the very same.​

Truth from a liar is absurd!!!
I nailed you lying, and you can't deny it!

I never lie.

I provided the source, and Rense noted this:
"You are about to read a list of 45 goals that found their way down the halls of our great Capitol back in 1963. As you read this, 39 years later, you should be shocked by the events that have played themselves out. I first ran across this list 3 years ago but was unable to attain a copy and it has bothered me ever since. Recently, Jeff Rense posted it on his site and I would like to thank him for doing so. "rense.com


Nothing was hidden.

You're sulking because I showed what a dunce you are in posting that George Bernard Shaw was just kidding when he endorsed the slaughter of any he didn't agree with.

He wasn't.
And you remain a dunce.

You ALWAYS lie.
you claimed you "got 'em from a website of declared communist goals..."
You didn't!
You got them from a Right-wing Fascist site who got them from a Right-wing Fascist propagandist. They are not from any Communist source and have nothing to do with Communism.

And Shaw was not joking, he was SATIRIZING, but you are too STUPID to know the difference.

 

[edthecynic]

1.Leftism is imbued with guilt .....and anger.

Rightism is imbued with fear .....and rage.