Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[Dale Smith]

A tax on consumable items that you can choose to purchase or not isn't the same thing as a tax on one's labor...now is it? You can avoid the gas tax by not having a car, no? BTW, there never was a "surplus" under Bill "drop trou"...it's a total myth. The last time USA.INC ever had a "surplus" was under Andrew Jackson when he refused to renew the charter of the central bank. What was the public debt under Bill "drop trou"????? The total national debt on September 30th, 2000 was 5.6 trillion dollars....so what about that alleged "surplus"? Bushpuppet doubled it and then the Barrypuppet doubled it...see? That is what happens when you have a debt based fiat currency system with a central banking system...it's nothing but a machine of perpetual debt slavery.

LABOR is getting paid, regardless of how you are paid, consumable or not!

Jackson? Oh right the possibly worst Prez EVER. Follow what happened after the debt was cleared up

No, we are not "paid", we are given a medium of exchange that has no intrinsic value that cannot be exchanged for REAL money which is silver/and or gold. That was done away with when USA.INC declared Bankruptcy in March of 1933 and under penalty of a huge fine and a five year prison sentence, the people had to turn in their REAL money (gold) in exchange for a Federal Reserve Note and people lost allodial rights to property. Are you familiar with HJR 192 per chance?

Tell that to the rest of the world who flock to the safety and security of US treasuries Bubs

What are those "treasuries" backed by? What commodity or something of an intrinsic value props it up other than the fact that a country must attain Federal Reserve Notes in order to buy oil from OPEC, a deal made by Nixon that we refer to as the "petro-dollar" after Nixon nixed the Bretton Woods agreement? You do know about the petro-dollar, the Bretton Woods agreement after WWII, correct? It seems to me that this bogus system (based on the military might of USA.INC) couldn't continue to exist unless there was a collaboration and deals made to protect countries that produce oil and any country that doesn't like to exchange their oil for worthless debt notes can count on USA.INC's military might to come over and open a can of (snicker) "democracy" on their asses and install a petro-dollar friendly puppet.....no?

Weird, don't understand how it works huh?

“full faith and credit”, Know why EVERYONE has flocked to US treasuries Bubs?

"Full faith and credit"?????? Of a nation that is 20 Trillion Federal Reserve Notes in debt????......yeah, that's a (snicker) "safe bet.....sign me up!!!! LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Let's get serious, for 36+ years the GOP has had a goal of "starve the beast" which ISN'T for making deficits or debt smaller!


THE ONLY 2 GUYS TO LEAVE THE NEXT GUYS A SMALLER DEFICIT THAN THE ONE THEY INHERITED WERE BJ BILL AND OBAMA

Deficit? Seriously?

Who the hell cares about the deficit? I know ---- we fucked up less than you fucked up.

In the meantime, the debt just keeps growing.

Hint THAT'S what a surplus is Bubs, grow a brain. A budget is yearly, you can have a balanced, deficit or surplus, BJ Bill had 4 surpluses, 3 after vetoing the GOP's $792+ billion tax cut, then Dubya came along and those "fiscal CONServatives" of the GOP showed US, again!

Figures don't lie - but liars figure.

Clinton added $1.36 trillion to the national debt. Hardly sounds like a balanced budget - or a surplus.

"From 1940 to the end of year 2015 (the latest figures available as of the writing of this article), the average increase in the federal debt was 9.3% under a Democratic President and 7.9% under a Republican President when including World War II."

The federal debt under Clinton equalled 62% of the GDP, an unsurpassed amount until Obama's administration - when it started out at 64% and increased to 102% of GDP.

U.S. Federal Debt by President / Political Party

If you're going to try to manipulate the numbers in order to foment a lie, at least use defensible numbers.

Got it you want to conflate debt with a yearly budget *Shaking head*

HINT, BJ BILL HAD 4 SURPLUSES, 3 AFTER VETOING THOSE FISCAL GOP'S $792 BILLION TAX CUT, THEN DUBYA WAS ELECTED, LOL

Four surpluses and STILL added $1.4 trillion to the national debt??

So, basically, what you're saying is that during the first four years when Dems were in charge of Congress, they spent like drunken sailors, but during the last four years that Congress was controlled by the Republicans, he followed their lead, announced that " ... the era of big government is over ... " adopted their sane fiscal approach, and were able to offset all but $1.36 trillion of the debacle from the first 4 years.

Let's never forget that it was Gingrich Who made Clinton lie and say the era of big government is over and it was Gingrich who followed up with a balanced budget amendment to prevent the libsocialist backsliding that was bound to occur at the first opportunity. After all how would Democrats get votes if they couldn't buy them with promises of welfare? Their presence in our democracy represents nothing other than complete subversion of the democratic process

 

[keepitreal]

Here is the way things work in the U.S. Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA! We are "supposed" to live in a democracy. But the business world rules your lives. How many people in business did you vote for. Do you vote for business or government. People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live. That is the government's job.

The fault for corporate greed, out of control, corrupted politicians
and a system of government that is not functioning,
is the fault of the people and their unwillingness
to sacrifice convenience and comfort and demand accountability

 

[Chuz Life]

When, if ever. . . will the leftardz ever learn that a Tax on the "rich" IS a tax on the poor?!?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

LABOR is getting paid, regardless of how you are paid, consumable or not!

Jackson? Oh right the possibly worst Prez EVER. Follow what happened after the debt was cleared up

No, we are not "paid", we are given a medium of exchange that has no intrinsic value that cannot be exchanged for REAL money which is silver/and or gold. That was done away with when USA.INC declared Bankruptcy in March of 1933 and under penalty of a huge fine and a five year prison sentence, the people had to turn in their REAL money (gold) in exchange for a Federal Reserve Note and people lost allodial rights to property. Are you familiar with HJR 192 per chance?

Tell that to the rest of the world who flock to the safety and security of US treasuries Bubs

What are those "treasuries" backed by? What commodity or something of an intrinsic value props it up other than the fact that a country must attain Federal Reserve Notes in order to buy oil from OPEC, a deal made by Nixon that we refer to as the "petro-dollar" after Nixon nixed the Bretton Woods agreement? You do know about the petro-dollar, the Bretton Woods agreement after WWII, correct? It seems to me that this bogus system (based on the military might of USA.INC) couldn't continue to exist unless there was a collaboration and deals made to protect countries that produce oil and any country that doesn't like to exchange their oil for worthless debt notes can count on USA.INC's military might to come over and open a can of (snicker) "democracy" on their asses and install a petro-dollar friendly puppet.....no?

Weird, don't understand how it works huh?

“full faith and credit”, Know why EVERYONE has flocked to US treasuries Bubs?

"Full faith and credit"?????? Of a nation that is 20 Trillion Federal Reserve Notes in debt????......yeah, that's a (snicker) "safe bet.....sign me up!!!! LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!

You don't want to own Treasury securities, don't buy any.

 

[danielpalos]

Pretty simple Bubs, it's a COST which they get to deduct, sorry to disappoint you Bubs

You think a US company can hire a guy in India and deduct his salary off US taxes?

Don't know much about the tax code either huh?

what part of "labor cost" do you not understand? There is no reason for that tax preference, at US labor's expense.

Which part of, "not a deductible expense in the US" do you not understand?

a labor cost is a labor cost; show me where the IRS doesn't give a tax preference for labor costs.

Find the tax form that lets a corporation deduct the foreign salary paid to a foreign worker in a foreign country.

standard labor cost deduction?

 

[danielpalos]

When, if ever. . . will the leftardz ever learn that a Tax on the "rich" IS a tax on the poor?!?

Taxing the rich can solve simple poverty.

 

[Chuz Life]

When, if ever. . . will the leftardz ever learn that a Tax on the "rich" IS a tax on the poor?!?

Taxing the rich can solve simple poverty.

Prove it.

 

[danielpalos]

When, if ever. . . will the leftardz ever learn that a Tax on the "rich" IS a tax on the poor?!?

Taxing the rich can solve simple poverty.

Prove it.

Simply fund unemployment compensation on an at-will basis that clears our poverty guidelines. We could abolish "wage slavery" and homelessness, at the same time.

 

[Spare_change]

When, if ever. . . will the leftardz ever learn that a Tax on the "rich" IS a tax on the poor?!?

Taxing the rich can solve simple poverty.

Absolutely not .... another canard foisted on the unsuspecting ...

 

[Spare_change]

When, if ever. . . will the leftardz ever learn that a Tax on the "rich" IS a tax on the poor?!?

Taxing the rich can solve simple poverty.

Prove it.

Simply fund unemployment compensation on an at-will basis that clears our poverty guidelines. We could abolish "wage slavery" and homelessness, at the same time.

Go do the math ---- how much taxes would we need to collect in order to fund this?

 

[danielpalos]

When, if ever. . . will the leftardz ever learn that a Tax on the "rich" IS a tax on the poor?!?

Taxing the rich can solve simple poverty.

Absolutely not .... another canard foisted on the unsuspecting ...

Only if you don't have enough morals to simply tax the rich into Heaven, by solving simple poverty.

 

[danielpalos]

When, if ever. . . will the leftardz ever learn that a Tax on the "rich" IS a tax on the poor?!?

Taxing the rich can solve simple poverty.

Prove it.

Simply fund unemployment compensation on an at-will basis that clears our poverty guidelines. We could abolish "wage slavery" and homelessness, at the same time.

Go do the math ---- how much taxes would we need to collect in order to fund this?

We could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy. I make a motion to abolish our current regime of unemployment compensation in favor of general taxes on firms, to fund the unemployment compensation fund.

It will cost less than we are paying now, and it will improve the performance of our economy.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here. Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes. The Poor! Slavery in action. The more that things change, the more they stay the same.

Here is the way things work in the U.S. Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA! We are "supposed" to live in a democracy. But the business world rules your lives. How many people in business did you vote for. Do you vote for business or government. People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live. That is the government's job.

I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs. If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves. Also, want to see something interesting? Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.

so what if a company paid no taxes?

every dollar any business makes eventually ends up in the hands of a person who then must claim that money on their tax returns

in fact S corporations and LLCs ( the most common types of business entities ) pay no federal tax at all since all the profit is claimed on the shareholders' and members' personal tax returns via the IRS form K1

 

[Spare_change]

When, if ever. . . will the leftardz ever learn that a Tax on the "rich" IS a tax on the poor?!?

Taxing the rich can solve simple poverty.

Prove it.

Simply fund unemployment compensation on an at-will basis that clears our poverty guidelines. We could abolish "wage slavery" and homelessness, at the same time.

Go do the math ---- how much taxes would we need to collect in order to fund this?

We could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy. I make a motion to abolish our current regime of unemployment compensation in favor of general taxes on firms, to fund the unemployment compensation fund.

It will cost less than we are paying now, and it will improve the performance of our economy.

Interesting ... you propose to change the method of funding in order to reduce the cost. You DO realize that one has nothing to do with the other, right? Cost is driven by benefit x no of recipients ..... which is not affected by the funding mechanism.

You also realize that increasing the tax burden on companies increases the retail burden on the buyers, right? Once you do that, then you increase the sales tax burden, as well.

Your approach is simplistic and unrealistic ... a toxic combination of naivete and ignorance.

 

[Spare_change]

When, if ever. . . will the leftardz ever learn that a Tax on the "rich" IS a tax on the poor?!?

Taxing the rich can solve simple poverty.

Absolutely not .... another canard foisted on the unsuspecting ...

Only if you don't have enough morals to simply tax the rich into Heaven, by solving simple poverty.

Morals? How interesting that YOU, of all people, should raise the question of morals.

How much income would the US government require to implement your proposal? (Hint: Look up the number of people in poverty and simply multiply by size of the proposed benefit). Now, you know how much your program will cost ----

Now, figure out how much tax would have to be placed on the top 10% in order to fund your program.

Doesn't work, does it? Not enough available capital to fund your giveaway program.

You realize, of course, that "poverty" is a relative term, right? There will always be "poor" because someone will be making more money than someone else. By definition, that means one person is poorer than the other.

 

[JonKoch]

Let's get serious, for 36+ years the GOP has had a goal of "starve the beast" which ISN'T for making deficits or debt smaller!


THE ONLY 2 GUYS TO LEAVE THE NEXT GUYS A SMALLER DEFICIT THAN THE ONE THEY INHERITED WERE BJ BILL AND OBAMA

Deficit? Seriously?

Who the hell cares about the deficit? I know ---- we fucked up less than you fucked up.

In the meantime, the debt just keeps growing.

Hint THAT'S what a surplus is Bubs, grow a brain. A budget is yearly, you can have a balanced, deficit or surplus, BJ Bill had 4 surpluses, 3 after vetoing the GOP's $792+ billion tax cut, then Dubya came along and those "fiscal CONServatives" of the GOP showed US, again!

Figures don't lie - but liars figure.

Clinton added $1.36 trillion to the national debt. Hardly sounds like a balanced budget - or a surplus.

"From 1940 to the end of year 2015 (the latest figures available as of the writing of this article), the average increase in the federal debt was 9.3% under a Democratic President and 7.9% under a Republican President when including World War II."

The federal debt under Clinton equalled 62% of the GDP, an unsurpassed amount until Obama's administration - when it started out at 64% and increased to 102% of GDP.

U.S. Federal Debt by President / Political Party

If you're going to try to manipulate the numbers in order to foment a lie, at least use defensible numbers.

Got it you want to conflate debt with a yearly budget *Shaking head*

HINT, BJ BILL HAD 4 SURPLUSES, 3 AFTER VETOING THOSE FISCAL GOP'S $792 BILLION TAX CUT, THEN DUBYA WAS ELECTED, LOL

Four surpluses and STILL added $1.4 trillion to the national debt??

So, basically, what you're saying is that during the first four years when Dems were in charge of Congress, they spent like drunken sailors, but during the last four years that Congress was controlled by the Republicans, he followed their lead, announced that " ... the era of big government is over ... " adopted their sane fiscal approach, and were able to offset all but $1.36 trillion of the debacle from the first 4 years.

Yes, DEBT is different than a yearly budget, but BJ Bill got US back to 20% of GDP after not a single GOPer voted for the 1993 tax increases that created the surpluses



BTW, this is what the GOPers were saying about the 1993 tax bill


FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’
FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’




After BJ Bill had his first budget surplus, he had to veto the GOP's $792+ billion tax cut to get three more, then Dubya was installed as Prez and the GOP had control of the economy

 

[JonKoch]

Ah another right winger not understanding the difference with a yearly budget and the debt. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.


Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton - FactCheck.org


About 90% of current debt can be traced back to POLICIES by Ronnie Reagan AND Dubya

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives to limit government spending by cutting taxes, in order to deprive the federal government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force it to reduce
spending.

Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia

No, what remains at the end of the day is the 5.6 Trillion dollars owed to the foreign owned central bank known as the "Federal Reserve" after Bill "drop trou" left office and that debt has doubled with each presidency. You have a lot to learn. Have you ever heard of the "Grace Commission"? How the "income tax" does not fund "da gubermint" but pays the interest to the mostly foreign owned private bank known as the "Federal Reserve" that is neither "federal" and has no reserves"????

LMAOROG, You anti federal Banksters are a funny group...

Foreign owned? lol


Myth 1: The Fed is run by foreigners

Myth 2: The Fed isn’t part of the US government

Myth 3: The Fed prints money

Myth 4: The Federal Reserve is not audited

5 Myths Debunked About The Federal Reserve

The Fed is a private entity and has never had a "top to bottom audit" in the entire 104 years of it's existence. Look up the "Federal Reserve Bank" in the "government" pages and you will not find it because it is a private entity. There are 13 shareholders of the Fed bank and we know that the Rothschilds, Warburgs, Kuhn Loeb, Goldman Sachs, Israel Moses, The Schiff family, Lehman Brothers, the Morgan family and the Rockefellers are big time shareholders.The Larards as well....it is a PRIVATE entity.

The Fed only keeps 6 percent of what the IRS (which is a Puerto Rican Trust #62) that is incorporated in Puerto Rico, a territory of USA.INC collects after (snicker) "Operating costs"??. What costs are those??? Because after all, the Fed has never been fully audited and they fight like hell to keep that from happening. A limited audit of the Fed showed that during the 2008 economic collapse that they sent a few trillion dollars created by data entry to their overseas banking affiliates.

The Fed doesn't "print" money...it simply buys fancy looking I.O.Us called "government bonds" or Treasury Notes from a checkbook with nothing in it. They create "money" from a few strokes on a computer keyboard backed by nothing but the sweat equity of the 14th amendment citizens/serfs when this corporate entity was declared "bankrupt" in 1933. Our "sweat equity" was pledged as surety against the debt thus the birth certificate that is printed on bond paper.

You have soooooo much to learn....you think that little bullshit website touting the legitimacy of a parasitic entity that is the Federal Reserve was going to sway me???? LMAO!!!!! I can knock each and every alleged "myth" like swatting away a fly...got something better?????

Gawd you anti feders are the worst. You knuckleheads don't accept there isn't a single developed nation without one.



PERHAPS TRY TO KNOCK DOWN THE FACTS PRESENTED INSTEAD OF CREATING MORE BS BUBS?

Actually there are four big countries without a Rothschild central bank......North Korea, Iran and Syria...and Russia that kicked them out and nationalized their central bank......so which countries are being demonized as "enemies" of USA.INC????? The above mentioned countries? Your ignorance staggers the imagination...I don't blame you personally because the programming runs just that deep....but DAMN ????

AGAIN:

"You knuckleheads don't accept there isn't a single developed nation without one."

Gangster Gov'ts and despots aren't developed nations!

 

[JonKoch]

Let's get serious, for 36+ years the GOP has had a goal of "starve the beast" which ISN'T for making deficits or debt smaller!


THE ONLY 2 GUYS TO LEAVE THE NEXT GUYS A SMALLER DEFICIT THAN THE ONE THEY INHERITED WERE BJ BILL AND OBAMA

Deficit? Seriously?

Who the hell cares about the deficit? I know ---- we fucked up less than you fucked up.

In the meantime, the debt just keeps growing.

Hint THAT'S what a surplus is Bubs, grow a brain. A budget is yearly, you can have a balanced, deficit or surplus, BJ Bill had 4 surpluses, 3 after vetoing the GOP's $792+ billion tax cut, then Dubya came along and those "fiscal CONServatives" of the GOP showed US, again!

Figures don't lie - but liars figure.

Clinton added $1.36 trillion to the national debt. Hardly sounds like a balanced budget - or a surplus.

"From 1940 to the end of year 2015 (the latest figures available as of the writing of this article), the average increase in the federal debt was 9.3% under a Democratic President and 7.9% under a Republican President when including World War II."

The federal debt under Clinton equalled 62% of the GDP, an unsurpassed amount until Obama's administration - when it started out at 64% and increased to 102% of GDP.

U.S. Federal Debt by President / Political Party

If you're going to try to manipulate the numbers in order to foment a lie, at least use defensible numbers.

... until compared to the Democrats whose record is even worse.

Yes I remember Ronnie Reagan railing about Carter''s deficits so Ronnie went out and quadrupled them. Dubya was so happy with the balanced budget that BJ Bill handed him he decided to gut revenues by 25% AS he blew up spending by 20% and then handed Obama a turd, but you keep believing the right wing infotainment complex BS

 

[JonKoch]

Taxing the rich can solve simple poverty.

Prove it.

Simply fund unemployment compensation on an at-will basis that clears our poverty guidelines. We could abolish "wage slavery" and homelessness, at the same time.

Go do the math ---- how much taxes would we need to collect in order to fund this?

We could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy. I make a motion to abolish our current regime of unemployment compensation in favor of general taxes on firms, to fund the unemployment compensation fund.

It will cost less than we are paying now, and it will improve the performance of our economy.

Interesting ... you propose to change the method of funding in order to reduce the cost. You DO realize that one has nothing to do with the other, right? Cost is driven by benefit x no of recipients ..... which is not affected by the funding mechanism.

You also realize that increasing the tax burden on companies increases the retail burden on the buyers, right? Once you do that, then you increase the sales tax burden, as well.

Your approach is simplistic and unrealistic ... a toxic combination of naivete and ignorance.

Care to give just ONE policy conservative have ever been correct about oh tax expert?

Hint Corp tax burden MOSTLY falls on owners of capital!