Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

[Ray From Cleveland]

You are really confused about this. . You need to understand the concept of reading comprehension.

I said combined cost of government. That includes State and Local, which combined with Federal is about 40% of the friggin GDP.

This country spends more money on the cost of government than the GDP of all but the top four richest countries in the world according to the CIA Fact Book. That is despicable! If you only count Federal government it only adds a couple of more countries to the list.

When you look at the direct and indirect cost of government to Americans you see that it is usually the highest household expenditure even if you are in the group that doesn't have to pay into that filthy ass income tax. No wonder Americans have such a difficult time meeting ends.

I am retired now but when I worked as an Engineering Director and my wife was a teacher the combined indirect and direct taxes for my household was about what my wife brought home in pay. In other words we had two working adults and the salary of one was needed just to pay the frigging taxes. Talk about despicable.

Even now in retirement our combine direct and indirect cost of government is an enormous household expense every year.

If you think the shithass government is entitled to 70% of a person income then why don't you be a sport and give the government 70% of what you make? Put your money where your mouth is for a change? I suspect being a greedy Moon Bat you don't want to pay that amount but you want others to do it.

If you take money away from the investors and job creators and give it to the welfare queens and Illegals guess what? You have no more investment and job creation.

I will agree to return to that 70% tax if you idiot Moon Bats agree to limit the combined cost of government to what we had when we had those rates.

By the way, it was JFK that changed those rates. Isn't he the darling of you Moon Bats? What did he get wrong?

The top federal tax rate was still above 70% under JFK, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ford, and Carter. It did not start to come down from 70% until Reagan entered office.

Total Federal outlays as a percentage of GDP were 20.8% in 1976. The top federal tax rate at that time was 70%.

Total Federal outlays as a percentage of GDP were 20.8% in 2017. The top federal tax rate at that time was 37%

You and your wife are middle class and would not be impacted by the top federal tax rate of 70%.

The reason you don't want the lower class and middle class paying a 70% tax rate is because it hurts consumer spending and the economy. The 70% rate is for the rich, a top federal rate, because even at such rates, the rich do not change their level of consumer spending. It does not hurt the economy and brings in much needed money for the treasury.

Its not about what you think is fair for a particular individual, its about what is the best way to maximize economic growth while also maximizing revenue coming into the treasury. You accomplish that with a progressive tax structure where much of the burden is placed on the rich, while the lower class and middle class are protected.

The 70% rate is for the rich, a top federal rate, because even at such rates, the rich do not change their level of consumer spending. It does not hurt the economy and brings in much needed money for the treasury.

How much is it going to bring in for the Treasury?

It's not going to being anywhere near the extra revenue that the Lib/Dems think it will. They do this every single time, linear math just does not work and never has when it comes to raising marginal tax rate for the simple reason that nobody wants to play that ridiculously high rate and so they invest their money in ways that avoid paying anything close to 70%. Or they move their business and investments overseas somewhere. Time after time, country after country it has always played out the same - you NEVER get anywhere near the revenue you thought you would get, but you know what? Most of the lib/dems don't care, cuz for them it ain't about revenue, it's about mother fucking fairness. Obama admitted it, he'd raise rates on the wealthy even if it didn't raise an extra dime of revenue. They don't give a shit about the economy, they don't care about the impact on jobs and growth.

Look at Sweden in the 80s, look at Britain when they raised their rates, look at France what, 10 back or so, they raised rates and it didn't work. We've seen it here in the US, when states raise their marginal income tax rates, the rich guys leave for someplace else. The rich guys IN EVERY CASE said fuck you, I ain't paying that and they left or they changed their investing and the economy suffered as a result. So here's the reality: would you rather get $20 if a rich guy gets $80 or would you rather get $10 if the rich guy only gets $40?

As I pointed out earlier, federal taxes are not the only taxes the rich pay. If you take 70% of their income just for federal, think of the total after they pay state, county, and city taxes. They'd be paying somewhere between 85% and 90%. Who would work for only ten or fifteen percent of the money you make?

The top federal rate kicks in on earnings made after a certain point, like $10 million dollars. Money made in the first $10 million is taxed at a lower rate. Worked just fine from 1945 to 1980 when the top federal rate was above 70% every year. In the 1950s it was above 80% every year. In 1951 the top federal rate was 92%.

And when Ronald Reagan realized those rich people were leaving the country and taking their jobs with them, he had to do something. So he lowered taxes to make it more inviting for them to stay in this country. Travel was becoming safer, technology was becoming more advanced, and rich people had less reason to stay here.

What you want to do is reverse everything he did that put this country back on track. What you’ll end up with is the same problem he had when he first became President only worse. I don’t care how bad people claim the last recession was, it was nothing compared to what took place in the early 80’s. I lived through both of them. At least in our last recession you could get a Burger King job. You couldn’t get one in the Reagan recession.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Flash]

[

The truth of the matter is some have no choice but to be on welfare. .

Ray

You and I agree on almost everything but I will have to respectfully disagree that we should have a system where some people can go on welfare.

I just don't think the government should ever be in the business of taking money from somebody that earns it and giving it somebody else. No welfare, subsidizes, entitlements, grants or bailouts.

The Bible teaches that charity should come from the heart, family and church. Charity can take care of the few that really need some help to survive. We don't need the government to institutionalize getting free stuff.

Charity does not always work, especially if you don’t subscribe to a religion.

Years ago my cousin got married and had two children. Her husband discovered drugs which eventually led to him losing a great job followed by their divorce. There she was with two small children and no income. Her entire dream shattered.

She went on welfare so she could raise her children. When they got old enough to attend school, she did the same. She graduated college and got a job. She paid off her college loans and later purchased a home. When her children graduated high school, they went to college too.

In the meantime, the taxes she created by working more than repaid what she used in welfare. Because she contributed to Social Security and started an IRA, she will be able to comfortably retire and not be a burden to taxpayers.

Now imagine her fate had there been nothing for her to fall back on. Where would her kids be today?

The problem with our social programs is few use them as my cousin did, and then everybody gets stereotyped and we demand an end to it all.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

The problem is that somebody else had to work and the government took their money by force and gave it to your cousin. Isn't that taking Liberty away from the person that earned the money?

Don't you think that person should have had a choice in whether or not the money he earned went to your cousin? In a welfare state you don't have choice, do you?

Maybe that person would have voluntarily helped out your cousin without the government forcing him to do so. Maybe without a welfare state you and other family members would have helped her more. Maybe she would have found another way.

There was really no welfare state until the filthy Democrats created one back in the 1960s in order to get the Black vote. The country did well for almost 200 years year without much public welfare.

Davy Crockett was once a member of the House of Representatives. At that time there was a big fire in the DC area that destroyed many homes. Congress wanted to vote public funds to give to the victims of the fire. Crockett wrote a very good paper saying that the money that Congress voted was not their money to give and it was morally wrong. He presents a very compelling case of why we shouldn't have a welfare state.

 

[danielpalos]

[

The truth of the matter is some have no choice but to be on welfare. .

Ray

You and I agree on almost everything but I will have to respectfully disagree that we should have a system where some people can go on welfare.

I just don't think the government should ever be in the business of taking money from somebody that earns it and giving it somebody else. No welfare, subsidizes, entitlements, grants or bailouts.

The Bible teaches that charity should come from the heart, family and church. Charity can take care of the few that really need some help to survive. We don't need the government to institutionalize getting free stuff.

Charity does not always work, especially if you don’t subscribe to a religion.

Years ago my cousin got married and had two children. Her husband discovered drugs which eventually led to him losing a great job followed by their divorce. There she was with two small children and no income. Her entire dream shattered.

She went on welfare so she could raise her children. When they got old enough to attend school, she did the same. She graduated college and got a job. She paid off her college loans and later purchased a home. When her children graduated high school, they went to college too.

In the meantime, the taxes she created by working more than repaid what she used in welfare. Because she contributed to Social Security and started an IRA, she will be able to comfortably retire and not be a burden to taxpayers.

Now imagine her fate had there been nothing for her to fall back on. Where would her kids be today?

The problem with our social programs is few use them as my cousin did, and then everybody gets stereotyped and we demand an end to it all.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

The problem is that somebody else had to work and the government took their money by force and gave it to your cousin. Isn't that taking Liberty away from the person that earned the money?

Don't you think that person should have had a choice in whether or not the money he earned went to your cousin? In a welfare state you don't have choice, do you?

Maybe that person would have voluntarily helped out your cousin without the government forcing him to do so. Maybe without a welfare state you and other family members would have helped her more. Maybe she would have found another way.

There was really no welfare state until the filthy Democrats created one back in the 1960s in order to get the Black vote. The country did well for almost 200 years year without much public welfare.

Davy Crockett was once a member of the House of Representatives. At that time there was a big fire in the DC area that destroyed many homes. Congress wanted to vote public funds to give to the victims of the fire. Crockett wrote a very good paper saying that the money that Congress voted was not their money to give and it was morally wrong. He presents a very compelling case of why we shouldn't have a welfare state.

you have even less choice in a warfare State. We have a welfare clause for a reason.

 

[Circe]

The draft was officially ended on June 30, 1973 in the United States. Since that time the United States has had an all volunteer military force.

Humph, I know that. I remember it well: the Dems enlisted the young Ted Kennedy to promote the bill to end conscription and as a person they hoped all the marching college students could relate to, and stop the protests. It worked. Not Ted Kennedy, but ending the draft, which is all we wanted.

A draft is no longer needed given the scale of wars, and technology, although there still could be one if the situation was extreme enough.

Or if a prez is powerful enough to get conscription: all presidents want the power a huge, almost infinite Army gives them. They usually misuse it, though. Civil War, Korean War, Vietnam War.

There is no such thing as a "forever war".

Boy, you sure could have fooled me. 17 years here, 15 years there, 15 years another place, and another place, and another place --------- this has to stop. I'll vote for anyone who will stop it. So far, it's looking like Trump may.

And not just forever wars in time, forever LOSING wars, too. We haven't won anything since 2001, and I think that's pretty awful. What, go into Afghanistan simply to kill Bin Laden, let him escape within days from Toro Boro into Pakistan, NOT go into Pakistan after him for many, many years, but just stay dribbling lives away all this time in Afghanistan, losing, losing, losing, and now still losing?

I'm disgusted. Okay, we lost in Afghanistan. Same as Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Bring the troops in Afghanistan home. I'm really sick of seeing all those ex-soldiers with blown-off legs on TV commercials. All I can hope is that the Taliban are now worried enough about how much we correct their benighted culture that they won't let the next Bin Laden set up camp there.

The United States only lost the Vietnam war because...…[many, many, many words, none of which matter because lost is lost]

The United States abandonment of South Vietnam in 1973, an ally it had helped for the previous 18 years and had a treaty to defend its territorial integrity, is the most shameful act in U.S. Foreign Policy history.

Hey, we lost. You can't do what you can't do. 58,000 deaths of Americans say we TRIED. Of course, it was an incredibly stupid and immoral thing to have gotten into in the first place. I am starting to blame Kennedy (I know Johnson did the escalation, but was it Kennedy's plan?) Kennedy was quite a warmonger: Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, missiles in Turkey pointed at Russia ---- I suspect he'd have really enjoyed using all those conscripted American troops if he had lived so long. Johnson doesn't seem to have enjoyed war as much.

No, for most shameful act in U.S. Foreign Policy history, I'm going with Obama's decision to pretend everything was JUST FINE, really just fine, in Libya, to boost his appearance of foreign policy success and thus losing an ambassador and his defenders in Benghazi. I know Hillary was blamed for that because she was up for election so blame her, but at the time (2012) it was obvious Obama had done it to promote his own election. Pretty rotten, IMO.

 

[U2Edge]

[


Most European countries have higher tax rates and are very successful at collecting a lot more revenue for the government as a percentage of GDP. There are several countries in Europe that have revenue collection rates that are 55% of annual GDP. In the United States, revenue collection is only 22% of annual GDP because of the much lower tax rates. So there is a lot of room to raise the top federal rate and the United States would benefit as a result.

Two things that you are missing.

The way the tax code was structured very few people ever paid at that rate. The loopholes were such that the rich were able to shield their income from being taxed at that rate.

The second thing is that the combined cost of government was lower at that time meaning less tax burden for everybody, including the rich. People paid less Federal, State and Local taxes. About 50% less for a good portion of that time frame.

It is immoral to use the government steal money from somebody else so that I can benefit. Nothing more than thievery. Progressive taxation is immoral as hell.

There are certain legitimate functions of government. Defense, police, roads, courts etc. We should all be taxed equally to pay our share the needed things. Progressive taxation is just another filthy ass way of the greedy welfare queens to raise revenue to get their free stuff and it is wrong. After all Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for supper.

The welfare queens demand to use the government to steal from the rich so they don't have to pay their own bills. Disgusting, isn't it?

Not true. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP was the same in 2017 as it was in 1976. The record for Federal spending as a percentage of GDP were the World War II years.

Its alleged that few people ever paid the highest rates from 1945 to 1980, but I have seen no proof of that except that the Budget was usually not balanced and or in surplus despite the higher top federal tax rates. Either way its debatable. What is not debatable is that the current top federal rate is too low. Most first world countries have a much higher top federal tax rate than the United States and then you have the historically higher top federal tax rates in the United States from 1945 to 1980, regardless of the debate about what people may or may not have been paying in reality.

1. Taxation is NOT THEFT
2. THE MARKET decides how much someone makes in their salary, the value of their home etc., not the worker.
3. The Worker did not create THE MARKET, he was born into it. Being lucky enough to be born into the U.S. market provides that worker unparalleled opportunity to exploit it and make large sums of money. But make no mistake, that MARKET was created by others who built it and risked their lives to defend it in multiple wars, long before the worker was even born.
4. The workers who BENEFIT THE MOST FROM THE MARKET are morally obligated to pay a much higher tax rate.


Again, these 6 items are 86% of the federal budget:

1. Defense
2. Social Security
3. Medicare
4. Medicaid
5. interest on the debt
6. Veterans Benefits.

Only a national emergency could ever justify seriously cutting any of these areas. Without Social Security and Medicare, you would create extreme poverty among older people which will have a serious negative impact on the rest of the country. The Standard Of Living in the rest of the country would drop, essentially turning the United States into a third world country when it comes to average standard of living.

All countries in the first world provide similar programs like Social Security and Medicare to its citizens. Its only in the THIRD WORLD that they don't. We don't want are society to become more structured and like that of the average country in Sub Saharan Africa. It would in the long run weaken the country in many ways. Social Security and Medicare came about after the experience of the GREAT DEPRESSION in the 1930s. The vast majority of the population wants the programs continued and there is NO serious candidate for President that plans to do away with these programs. Even Donald Trump supports these programs.

 

[progressive hunter]

[


Most European countries have higher tax rates and are very successful at collecting a lot more revenue for the government as a percentage of GDP. There are several countries in Europe that have revenue collection rates that are 55% of annual GDP. In the United States, revenue collection is only 22% of annual GDP because of the much lower tax rates. So there is a lot of room to raise the top federal rate and the United States would benefit as a result.

Two things that you are missing.

The way the tax code was structured very few people ever paid at that rate. The loopholes were such that the rich were able to shield their income from being taxed at that rate.

The second thing is that the combined cost of government was lower at that time meaning less tax burden for everybody, including the rich. People paid less Federal, State and Local taxes. About 50% less for a good portion of that time frame.

It is immoral to use the government steal money from somebody else so that I can benefit. Nothing more than thievery. Progressive taxation is immoral as hell.

There are certain legitimate functions of government. Defense, police, roads, courts etc. We should all be taxed equally to pay our share the needed things. Progressive taxation is just another filthy ass way of the greedy welfare queens to raise revenue to get their free stuff and it is wrong. After all Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for supper.

The welfare queens demand to use the government to steal from the rich so they don't have to pay their own bills. Disgusting, isn't it?

Not true. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP was the same in 2017 as it was in 1976. The record for Federal spending as a percentage of GDP were the World War II years.

Its alleged that few people ever paid the highest rates from 1945 to 1980, but I have seen no proof of that except that the Budget was usually not balanced and or in surplus despite the higher top federal tax rates. Either way its debatable. What is not debatable is that the current top federal rate is too low. Most first world countries have a much higher top federal tax rate than the United States and then you have the historically higher top federal tax rates in the United States from 1945 to 1980, regardless of the debate about what people may or may not have been paying in reality.

1. Taxation is NOT THEFT
2. THE MARKET decides how much someone makes in their salary, the value of their home etc., not the worker.
3. The Worker did not create THE MARKET, he was born into it. Being lucky enough to be born into the U.S. market provides that worker unparalleled opportunity to exploit it and make large sums of money. But make no mistake, that MARKET was created by others who built it and risked their lives to defend it in multiple wars, long before the worker was even born.
4. The workers who BENEFIT THE MOST FROM THE MARKET are morally obligated to pay a much higher tax rate.


Again, these 6 items are 86% of the federal budget:

1. Defense
2. Social Security
3. Medicare
4. Medicaid
5. interest on the debt
6. Veterans Benefits.

Only a national emergency could ever justify seriously cutting any of these areas. Without Social Security and Medicare, you would create extreme poverty among older people which will have a serious negative impact on the rest of the country. The Standard Of Living in the rest of the country would drop, essentially turning the United States into a third world country when it comes to average standard of living.

All countries in the first world provide similar programs like Social Security and Medicare to its citizens. Its only in the THIRD WORLD that they don't. We don't want are society to become more structured and like that of the average country in Sub Saharan Africa. It would in the long run weaken the country in many ways. Social Security and Medicare came about after the experience of the GREAT DEPRESSION in the 1930s. The vast majority of the population wants the programs continued and there is NO serious candidate for President that plans to do away with these programs. Even Donald Trump supports these programs.

if taxation isnt theft then why do they use a gun???

 

[Flash]

[


Most European countries have higher tax rates and are very successful at collecting a lot more revenue for the government as a percentage of GDP. There are several countries in Europe that have revenue collection rates that are 55% of annual GDP. In the United States, revenue collection is only 22% of annual GDP because of the much lower tax rates. So there is a lot of room to raise the top federal rate and the United States would benefit as a result.

Two things that you are missing.

The way the tax code was structured very few people ever paid at that rate. The loopholes were such that the rich were able to shield their income from being taxed at that rate.

The second thing is that the combined cost of government was lower at that time meaning less tax burden for everybody, including the rich. People paid less Federal, State and Local taxes. About 50% less for a good portion of that time frame.

It is immoral to use the government steal money from somebody else so that I can benefit. Nothing more than thievery. Progressive taxation is immoral as hell.

There are certain legitimate functions of government. Defense, police, roads, courts etc. We should all be taxed equally to pay our share the needed things. Progressive taxation is just another filthy ass way of the greedy welfare queens to raise revenue to get their free stuff and it is wrong. After all Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for supper.

The welfare queens demand to use the government to steal from the rich so they don't have to pay their own bills. Disgusting, isn't it?

Not true. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP was the same in 2017 as it was in 1976. The record for Federal spending as a percentage of GDP were the World War II years.

Its alleged that few people ever paid the highest rates from 1945 to 1980, but I have seen no proof of that except that the Budget was usually not balanced and or in surplus despite the higher top federal tax rates. Either way its debatable. What is not debatable is that the current top federal rate is too low. Most first world countries have a much higher top federal tax rate than the United States and then you have the historically higher top federal tax rates in the United States from 1945 to 1980, regardless of the debate about what people may or may not have been paying in reality.

1. Taxation is NOT THEFT
2. THE MARKET decides how much someone makes in their salary, the value of their home etc., not the worker.
3. The Worker did not create THE MARKET, he was born into it. Being lucky enough to be born into the U.S. market provides that worker unparalleled opportunity to exploit it and make large sums of money. But make no mistake, that MARKET was created by others who built it and risked their lives to defend it in multiple wars, long before the worker was even born.
4. The workers who BENEFIT THE MOST FROM THE MARKET are morally obligated to pay a much higher tax rate.


Again, these 6 items are 86% of the federal budget:

1. Defense
2. Social Security
3. Medicare
4. Medicaid
5. interest on the debt
6. Veterans Benefits.

Only a national emergency could ever justify seriously cutting any of these areas. Without Social Security and Medicare, you would create extreme poverty among older people which will have a serious negative impact on the rest of the country. The Standard Of Living in the rest of the country would drop, essentially turning the United States into a third world country when it comes to average standard of living.

All countries in the first world provide similar programs like Social Security and Medicare to its citizens. Its only in the THIRD WORLD that they don't. We don't want are society to become more structured and like that of the average country in Sub Saharan Africa. It would in the long run weaken the country in many ways. Social Security and Medicare came about after the experience of the GREAT DEPRESSION in the 1930s. The vast majority of the population wants the programs continued and there is NO serious candidate for President that plans to do away with these programs. Even Donald Trump supports these programs.

You are confused.

Taxation can be thievery just like an alley mugging. In a welfare state like this country has now it is a state sponsored mugging.

Democracy can be just as oppressive as any other kind of government. It can rob you of liberty just like any other kind of government. It can steal your money just like any other kind of government.

When the majority uses the filthy ass government to require that I give them my money that is thievery just like any other kind of thievery.

When the fucking government takes the money that I make and gives to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal that is thievery as sure as hell.

 

[U2Edge]

The draft was officially ended on June 30, 1973 in the United States. Since that time the United States has had an all volunteer military force.

Humph, I know that. I remember it well: the Dems enlisted the young Ted Kennedy to promote the bill to end conscription and as a person they hoped all the marching college students could relate to, and stop the protests. It worked. Not Ted Kennedy, but ending the draft, which is all we wanted.

A draft is no longer needed given the scale of wars, and technology, although there still could be one if the situation was extreme enough.

Or if a prez is powerful enough to get conscription: all presidents want the power a huge, almost infinite Army gives them. They usually misuse it, though. Civil War, Korean War, Vietnam War.

There is no such thing as a "forever war".

Boy, you sure could have fooled me. 17 years here, 15 years there, 15 years another place, and another place, and another place --------- this has to stop. I'll vote for anyone who will stop it. So far, it's looking like Trump may.

And not just forever wars in time, forever LOSING wars, too. We haven't won anything since 2001, and I think that's pretty awful. What, go into Afghanistan simply to kill Bin Laden, let him escape within days from Toro Boro into Pakistan, NOT go into Pakistan after him for many, many years, but just stay dribbling lives away all this time in Afghanistan, losing, losing, losing, and now still losing?

I'm disgusted. Okay, we lost in Afghanistan. Same as Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Bring the troops in Afghanistan home. I'm really sick of seeing all those ex-soldiers with blown-off legs on TV commercials. All I can hope is that the Taliban are now worried enough about how much we correct their benighted culture that they won't let the next Bin Laden set up camp there.

The United States only lost the Vietnam war because...…[many, many, many words, none of which matter because lost is lost]

The United States abandonment of South Vietnam in 1973, an ally it had helped for the previous 18 years and had a treaty to defend its territorial integrity, is the most shameful act in U.S. Foreign Policy history.

Hey, we lost. You can't do what you can't do. 58,000 deaths of Americans say we TRIED. Of course, it was an incredibly stupid and immoral thing to have gotten into in the first place. I am starting to blame Kennedy (I know Johnson did the escalation, but was it Kennedy's plan?) Kennedy was quite a warmonger: Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, missiles in Turkey pointed at Russia ---- I suspect he'd have really enjoyed using all those conscripted American troops if he had lived so long. Johnson doesn't seem to have enjoyed war as much.

No, for most shameful act in U.S. Foreign Policy history, I'm going with Obama's decision to pretend everything was JUST FINE, really just fine, in Libya, to boost his appearance of foreign policy success and thus losing an ambassador and his defenders in Benghazi. I know Hillary was blamed for that because she was up for election so blame her, but at the time (2012) it was obvious Obama had done it to promote his own election. Pretty rotten, IMO.

Most Vietnam protest ended long before the draft ended. By 1972 there was in fact very little coverage of the war.

Most military personal in the Civil War were volunteers, same with Korea and Vietnam. Draftees made up a minority of those that served in the Vietnam war. In fact, had Lyndon Johnson used the National Guard and Reserves during the Vietnam war, the draft would not have been needed. Many people drafted during the Vietnam war were never sent to Vietnam. Many went to Germany, South Korea, Italy, or were based in the states during their service.

It was only in World War II, where the number of draftees outnumbered the number of volunteers.

The United States has been in Afghanistan for over 17 years because United States National Security requires it much of the intervention in Afghanistan is about nation building and not the war. These things take time. At one point there were 110,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Today there are only 14,000. The Afghan military is doing nearly all of the fighting with the 14,000 U.S. troops there in an advise, train, and assist role. As the Afghan army becomes more capable, the number U.S. troops in country will continue to drop.

In Iraq, the United States once had 180,000 troops in country, today that number is down to only 5,000. The murder rate in Iraq in 2018 was less than the murder rate in California during the 1980s. A huge improvement. Again, the process here is working and the United States benefits enormously from the enhanced security environment in the Persian Gulf region. No U.S. troops have been killed inside Iraq by hostile fire since 2017.

In Vietnam the war had been largely won by 1972. The proof of that was in the defeat of North Vietnam's Easter Offensive in 1972 with only 60,000 American troops on the ground compared to the 540,000 that had been there in 1969. South Vietnam was winning, and then the United States abandoned the country in 1973. Most shameful act ever in U.S. history consigning millions of people to slavery under Soviet style communism.

The United States has been winning in Afghanistan since 2001. It removed the Taliban from power in 2001 and installed a new government. That new government is still in power today. All 34 provincial capitals in Afghanistan are under control of the Afghan government the United States installed in 2001. The Taliban continue to resist from rural desert and mountain areas, but that is it. Under virtually any standard of victory conditions, the United States has been winning in Afghanistan for over 17 years now. All the metrics show it. Again, where is the evidence of defeat or that the war was lost? It does not exist.

Iraq is the same. The United States successfully invaded and removed Saddam from power in 2003. In 2018, Iraq has a murder rate lower than California in the 1980s and a Standard Of Living that is higher than Morocco and growing day by day. All the terrorist elements in the country no longer hold any territory. What is left of them are in hiding. There are only 5,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq down from the 180,000 that used to be there. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are much safer today now that Saddam is out of power. Again, where is the evidence of defeat or that something was like the war was lost? There is none.

You need to re-examine your definitions of what victory, defeat, winning or loss mean when it comes to war.

 

[U2Edge]

The top federal tax rate was still above 70% under JFK, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ford, and Carter. It did not start to come down from 70% until Reagan entered office.

Total Federal outlays as a percentage of GDP were 20.8% in 1976. The top federal tax rate at that time was 70%.

Total Federal outlays as a percentage of GDP were 20.8% in 2017. The top federal tax rate at that time was 37%

You and your wife are middle class and would not be impacted by the top federal tax rate of 70%.

The reason you don't want the lower class and middle class paying a 70% tax rate is because it hurts consumer spending and the economy. The 70% rate is for the rich, a top federal rate, because even at such rates, the rich do not change their level of consumer spending. It does not hurt the economy and brings in much needed money for the treasury.

Its not about what you think is fair for a particular individual, its about what is the best way to maximize economic growth while also maximizing revenue coming into the treasury. You accomplish that with a progressive tax structure where much of the burden is placed on the rich, while the lower class and middle class are protected.

The 70% rate is for the rich, a top federal rate, because even at such rates, the rich do not change their level of consumer spending. It does not hurt the economy and brings in much needed money for the treasury.

How much is it going to bring in for the Treasury?

It's not going to being anywhere near the extra revenue that the Lib/Dems think it will. They do this every single time, linear math just does not work and never has when it comes to raising marginal tax rate for the simple reason that nobody wants to play that ridiculously high rate and so they invest their money in ways that avoid paying anything close to 70%. Or they move their business and investments overseas somewhere. Time after time, country after country it has always played out the same - you NEVER get anywhere near the revenue you thought you would get, but you know what? Most of the lib/dems don't care, cuz for them it ain't about revenue, it's about mother fucking fairness. Obama admitted it, he'd raise rates on the wealthy even if it didn't raise an extra dime of revenue. They don't give a shit about the economy, they don't care about the impact on jobs and growth.

Look at Sweden in the 80s, look at Britain when they raised their rates, look at France what, 10 back or so, they raised rates and it didn't work. We've seen it here in the US, when states raise their marginal income tax rates, the rich guys leave for someplace else. The rich guys IN EVERY CASE said fuck you, I ain't paying that and they left or they changed their investing and the economy suffered as a result. So here's the reality: would you rather get $20 if a rich guy gets $80 or would you rather get $10 if the rich guy only gets $40?

As I pointed out earlier, federal taxes are not the only taxes the rich pay. If you take 70% of their income just for federal, think of the total after they pay state, county, and city taxes. They'd be paying somewhere between 85% and 90%. Who would work for only ten or fifteen percent of the money you make?

The top federal rate kicks in on earnings made after a certain point, like $10 million dollars. Money made in the first $10 million is taxed at a lower rate. Worked just fine from 1945 to 1980 when the top federal rate was above 70% every year. In the 1950s it was above 80% every year. In 1951 the top federal rate was 92%.

And when Ronald Reagan realized those rich people were leaving the country and taking their jobs with them, he had to do something. So he lowered taxes to make it more inviting for them to stay in this country. Travel was becoming safer, technology was becoming more advanced, and rich people had less reason to stay here.

What you want to do is reverse everything he did that put this country back on track. What you’ll end up with is the same problem he had when he first became President only worse. I don’t care how bad people claim the last recession was, it was nothing compared to what took place in the early 80’s. I lived through both of them. At least in our last recession you could get a Burger King job. You couldn’t get one in the Reagan recession.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

The top federal tax rate was not lower in Europe, Japan and Australia when Reagan became President. The rich did not flee then at all. Again, the 50s, 60s, 70s saw some of the highest top federal tax rates in this countries history, but that is when many business's were built that continue to thrive today.

 

[U2Edge]

[


Most European countries have higher tax rates and are very successful at collecting a lot more revenue for the government as a percentage of GDP. There are several countries in Europe that have revenue collection rates that are 55% of annual GDP. In the United States, revenue collection is only 22% of annual GDP because of the much lower tax rates. So there is a lot of room to raise the top federal rate and the United States would benefit as a result.

Two things that you are missing.

The way the tax code was structured very few people ever paid at that rate. The loopholes were such that the rich were able to shield their income from being taxed at that rate.

The second thing is that the combined cost of government was lower at that time meaning less tax burden for everybody, including the rich. People paid less Federal, State and Local taxes. About 50% less for a good portion of that time frame.

It is immoral to use the government steal money from somebody else so that I can benefit. Nothing more than thievery. Progressive taxation is immoral as hell.

There are certain legitimate functions of government. Defense, police, roads, courts etc. We should all be taxed equally to pay our share the needed things. Progressive taxation is just another filthy ass way of the greedy welfare queens to raise revenue to get their free stuff and it is wrong. After all Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for supper.

The welfare queens demand to use the government to steal from the rich so they don't have to pay their own bills. Disgusting, isn't it?

Not true. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP was the same in 2017 as it was in 1976. The record for Federal spending as a percentage of GDP were the World War II years.

Its alleged that few people ever paid the highest rates from 1945 to 1980, but I have seen no proof of that except that the Budget was usually not balanced and or in surplus despite the higher top federal tax rates. Either way its debatable. What is not debatable is that the current top federal rate is too low. Most first world countries have a much higher top federal tax rate than the United States and then you have the historically higher top federal tax rates in the United States from 1945 to 1980, regardless of the debate about what people may or may not have been paying in reality.

1. Taxation is NOT THEFT
2. THE MARKET decides how much someone makes in their salary, the value of their home etc., not the worker.
3. The Worker did not create THE MARKET, he was born into it. Being lucky enough to be born into the U.S. market provides that worker unparalleled opportunity to exploit it and make large sums of money. But make no mistake, that MARKET was created by others who built it and risked their lives to defend it in multiple wars, long before the worker was even born.
4. The workers who BENEFIT THE MOST FROM THE MARKET are morally obligated to pay a much higher tax rate.


Again, these 6 items are 86% of the federal budget:

1. Defense
2. Social Security
3. Medicare
4. Medicaid
5. interest on the debt
6. Veterans Benefits.

Only a national emergency could ever justify seriously cutting any of these areas. Without Social Security and Medicare, you would create extreme poverty among older people which will have a serious negative impact on the rest of the country. The Standard Of Living in the rest of the country would drop, essentially turning the United States into a third world country when it comes to average standard of living.

All countries in the first world provide similar programs like Social Security and Medicare to its citizens. Its only in the THIRD WORLD that they don't. We don't want are society to become more structured and like that of the average country in Sub Saharan Africa. It would in the long run weaken the country in many ways. Social Security and Medicare came about after the experience of the GREAT DEPRESSION in the 1930s. The vast majority of the population wants the programs continued and there is NO serious candidate for President that plans to do away with these programs. Even Donald Trump supports these programs.

You are confused.

Taxation can be thievery just like an alley mugging. In a welfare state like this country has now it is a state sponsored mugging.

Democracy can be just as oppressive as any other kind of government. It can rob you of liberty just like any other kind of government. It can steal your money just like any other kind of government.

When the majority uses the filthy ass government to require that I give them my money that is thievery just like any other kind of thievery.

When the fucking government takes the money that I make and gives to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal that is thievery as sure as hell.

I'm not confused because I understand how the United States and the United States market were built. What you EARN is decided by the U.S. Market. In return for the benefit of being able to earn money and exploit that U.S. market, you must give back some of what you earned in taxes. Without the MARKET you would not have that money. Its as simple as that.

If you don't like that system, your free to move to Somalia where there is no government and no taxes to pay to a government. None of this alleged theft you claim of in Somalia by a central government. Sounds like your dream environment.

 

[progressive hunter]

[


Most European countries have higher tax rates and are very successful at collecting a lot more revenue for the government as a percentage of GDP. There are several countries in Europe that have revenue collection rates that are 55% of annual GDP. In the United States, revenue collection is only 22% of annual GDP because of the much lower tax rates. So there is a lot of room to raise the top federal rate and the United States would benefit as a result.

Two things that you are missing.

The way the tax code was structured very few people ever paid at that rate. The loopholes were such that the rich were able to shield their income from being taxed at that rate.

The second thing is that the combined cost of government was lower at that time meaning less tax burden for everybody, including the rich. People paid less Federal, State and Local taxes. About 50% less for a good portion of that time frame.

It is immoral to use the government steal money from somebody else so that I can benefit. Nothing more than thievery. Progressive taxation is immoral as hell.

There are certain legitimate functions of government. Defense, police, roads, courts etc. We should all be taxed equally to pay our share the needed things. Progressive taxation is just another filthy ass way of the greedy welfare queens to raise revenue to get their free stuff and it is wrong. After all Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for supper.

The welfare queens demand to use the government to steal from the rich so they don't have to pay their own bills. Disgusting, isn't it?

Not true. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP was the same in 2017 as it was in 1976. The record for Federal spending as a percentage of GDP were the World War II years.

Its alleged that few people ever paid the highest rates from 1945 to 1980, but I have seen no proof of that except that the Budget was usually not balanced and or in surplus despite the higher top federal tax rates. Either way its debatable. What is not debatable is that the current top federal rate is too low. Most first world countries have a much higher top federal tax rate than the United States and then you have the historically higher top federal tax rates in the United States from 1945 to 1980, regardless of the debate about what people may or may not have been paying in reality.

1. Taxation is NOT THEFT
2. THE MARKET decides how much someone makes in their salary, the value of their home etc., not the worker.
3. The Worker did not create THE MARKET, he was born into it. Being lucky enough to be born into the U.S. market provides that worker unparalleled opportunity to exploit it and make large sums of money. But make no mistake, that MARKET was created by others who built it and risked their lives to defend it in multiple wars, long before the worker was even born.
4. The workers who BENEFIT THE MOST FROM THE MARKET are morally obligated to pay a much higher tax rate.


Again, these 6 items are 86% of the federal budget:

1. Defense
2. Social Security
3. Medicare
4. Medicaid
5. interest on the debt
6. Veterans Benefits.

Only a national emergency could ever justify seriously cutting any of these areas. Without Social Security and Medicare, you would create extreme poverty among older people which will have a serious negative impact on the rest of the country. The Standard Of Living in the rest of the country would drop, essentially turning the United States into a third world country when it comes to average standard of living.

All countries in the first world provide similar programs like Social Security and Medicare to its citizens. Its only in the THIRD WORLD that they don't. We don't want are society to become more structured and like that of the average country in Sub Saharan Africa. It would in the long run weaken the country in many ways. Social Security and Medicare came about after the experience of the GREAT DEPRESSION in the 1930s. The vast majority of the population wants the programs continued and there is NO serious candidate for President that plans to do away with these programs. Even Donald Trump supports these programs.

You are confused.

Taxation can be thievery just like an alley mugging. In a welfare state like this country has now it is a state sponsored mugging.

Democracy can be just as oppressive as any other kind of government. It can rob you of liberty just like any other kind of government. It can steal your money just like any other kind of government.

When the majority uses the filthy ass government to require that I give them my money that is thievery just like any other kind of thievery.

When the fucking government takes the money that I make and gives to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal that is thievery as sure as hell.

I'm not confused because I understand how the United States and the United States market were built. What you EARN is decided by the U.S. Market. In return for the benefit of being able to earn money and exploit that U.S. market, you must give back some of what you earned in taxes. Without the MARKET you would not have that money. Its as simple as that.

If you don't like that system, your free to move to Somalia where there is no government and no taxes to pay to a government. None of this alleged theft you claim of in Somalia by a central government. Sounds like your dream environment.

careful there U2 youre bordering on fascism with this one,,,

"In return for the benefit of being able to earn money and exploit that U.S. market,"

taxs are meant to pay the debts of the country and not so the feds can stick their hand in my pocket because I decided to work for a living

 

[U2Edge]

[


Most European countries have higher tax rates and are very successful at collecting a lot more revenue for the government as a percentage of GDP. There are several countries in Europe that have revenue collection rates that are 55% of annual GDP. In the United States, revenue collection is only 22% of annual GDP because of the much lower tax rates. So there is a lot of room to raise the top federal rate and the United States would benefit as a result.

Two things that you are missing.

The way the tax code was structured very few people ever paid at that rate. The loopholes were such that the rich were able to shield their income from being taxed at that rate.

The second thing is that the combined cost of government was lower at that time meaning less tax burden for everybody, including the rich. People paid less Federal, State and Local taxes. About 50% less for a good portion of that time frame.

It is immoral to use the government steal money from somebody else so that I can benefit. Nothing more than thievery. Progressive taxation is immoral as hell.

There are certain legitimate functions of government. Defense, police, roads, courts etc. We should all be taxed equally to pay our share the needed things. Progressive taxation is just another filthy ass way of the greedy welfare queens to raise revenue to get their free stuff and it is wrong. After all Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for supper.

The welfare queens demand to use the government to steal from the rich so they don't have to pay their own bills. Disgusting, isn't it?

Not true. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP was the same in 2017 as it was in 1976. The record for Federal spending as a percentage of GDP were the World War II years.

Its alleged that few people ever paid the highest rates from 1945 to 1980, but I have seen no proof of that except that the Budget was usually not balanced and or in surplus despite the higher top federal tax rates. Either way its debatable. What is not debatable is that the current top federal rate is too low. Most first world countries have a much higher top federal tax rate than the United States and then you have the historically higher top federal tax rates in the United States from 1945 to 1980, regardless of the debate about what people may or may not have been paying in reality.

1. Taxation is NOT THEFT
2. THE MARKET decides how much someone makes in their salary, the value of their home etc., not the worker.
3. The Worker did not create THE MARKET, he was born into it. Being lucky enough to be born into the U.S. market provides that worker unparalleled opportunity to exploit it and make large sums of money. But make no mistake, that MARKET was created by others who built it and risked their lives to defend it in multiple wars, long before the worker was even born.
4. The workers who BENEFIT THE MOST FROM THE MARKET are morally obligated to pay a much higher tax rate.


Again, these 6 items are 86% of the federal budget:

1. Defense
2. Social Security
3. Medicare
4. Medicaid
5. interest on the debt
6. Veterans Benefits.

Only a national emergency could ever justify seriously cutting any of these areas. Without Social Security and Medicare, you would create extreme poverty among older people which will have a serious negative impact on the rest of the country. The Standard Of Living in the rest of the country would drop, essentially turning the United States into a third world country when it comes to average standard of living.

All countries in the first world provide similar programs like Social Security and Medicare to its citizens. Its only in the THIRD WORLD that they don't. We don't want are society to become more structured and like that of the average country in Sub Saharan Africa. It would in the long run weaken the country in many ways. Social Security and Medicare came about after the experience of the GREAT DEPRESSION in the 1930s. The vast majority of the population wants the programs continued and there is NO serious candidate for President that plans to do away with these programs. Even Donald Trump supports these programs.

if taxation isnt theft then why do they use a gun???

Your salary, the value of your home, property, is decided by the United Sates MARKET. Since you get your money from the U.S. market, you owe the U.S. government some of that money back in taxes. The laws of the U.S. government and the U.S. military created and allow the U.S. market to continue to exist. Since you born into this system and receive money from it and exploit it, you must give some money back in the form of taxes to help keep it going. The U.S. market and its wealth was here long before you were born. You were just lucky enough to be born into it. The more successful you are in this market and country, the more you must give back in order to keep it going.

 

[Flash]

[


Most European countries have higher tax rates and are very successful at collecting a lot more revenue for the government as a percentage of GDP. There are several countries in Europe that have revenue collection rates that are 55% of annual GDP. In the United States, revenue collection is only 22% of annual GDP because of the much lower tax rates. So there is a lot of room to raise the top federal rate and the United States would benefit as a result.

Two things that you are missing.

The way the tax code was structured very few people ever paid at that rate. The loopholes were such that the rich were able to shield their income from being taxed at that rate.

The second thing is that the combined cost of government was lower at that time meaning less tax burden for everybody, including the rich. People paid less Federal, State and Local taxes. About 50% less for a good portion of that time frame.

It is immoral to use the government steal money from somebody else so that I can benefit. Nothing more than thievery. Progressive taxation is immoral as hell.

There are certain legitimate functions of government. Defense, police, roads, courts etc. We should all be taxed equally to pay our share the needed things. Progressive taxation is just another filthy ass way of the greedy welfare queens to raise revenue to get their free stuff and it is wrong. After all Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for supper.

The welfare queens demand to use the government to steal from the rich so they don't have to pay their own bills. Disgusting, isn't it?

Not true. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP was the same in 2017 as it was in 1976. The record for Federal spending as a percentage of GDP were the World War II years.

Its alleged that few people ever paid the highest rates from 1945 to 1980, but I have seen no proof of that except that the Budget was usually not balanced and or in surplus despite the higher top federal tax rates. Either way its debatable. What is not debatable is that the current top federal rate is too low. Most first world countries have a much higher top federal tax rate than the United States and then you have the historically higher top federal tax rates in the United States from 1945 to 1980, regardless of the debate about what people may or may not have been paying in reality.

1. Taxation is NOT THEFT
2. THE MARKET decides how much someone makes in their salary, the value of their home etc., not the worker.
3. The Worker did not create THE MARKET, he was born into it. Being lucky enough to be born into the U.S. market provides that worker unparalleled opportunity to exploit it and make large sums of money. But make no mistake, that MARKET was created by others who built it and risked their lives to defend it in multiple wars, long before the worker was even born.
4. The workers who BENEFIT THE MOST FROM THE MARKET are morally obligated to pay a much higher tax rate.


Again, these 6 items are 86% of the federal budget:

1. Defense
2. Social Security
3. Medicare
4. Medicaid
5. interest on the debt
6. Veterans Benefits.

Only a national emergency could ever justify seriously cutting any of these areas. Without Social Security and Medicare, you would create extreme poverty among older people which will have a serious negative impact on the rest of the country. The Standard Of Living in the rest of the country would drop, essentially turning the United States into a third world country when it comes to average standard of living.

All countries in the first world provide similar programs like Social Security and Medicare to its citizens. Its only in the THIRD WORLD that they don't. We don't want are society to become more structured and like that of the average country in Sub Saharan Africa. It would in the long run weaken the country in many ways. Social Security and Medicare came about after the experience of the GREAT DEPRESSION in the 1930s. The vast majority of the population wants the programs continued and there is NO serious candidate for President that plans to do away with these programs. Even Donald Trump supports these programs.

You are confused.

Taxation can be thievery just like an alley mugging. In a welfare state like this country has now it is a state sponsored mugging.

Democracy can be just as oppressive as any other kind of government. It can rob you of liberty just like any other kind of government. It can steal your money just like any other kind of government.

When the majority uses the filthy ass government to require that I give them my money that is thievery just like any other kind of thievery.

When the fucking government takes the money that I make and gives to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal that is thievery as sure as hell.

I'm not confused because I understand how the United States and the United States market were built. What you EARN is decided by the U.S. Market. In return for the benefit of being able to earn money and exploit that U.S. market, you must give back some of what you earned in taxes. Without the MARKET you would not have that money. Its as simple as that.

If you don't like that system, your free to move to Somalia where there is no government and no taxes to pay to a government. None of this alleged theft you claim of in Somalia by a central government. Sounds like your dream environment.

You are really confused Moon Bat.

If you and a majority of your greedy worthless asshole buddies use the government system to steal my money to buy your food stamps and your medical care then that is sure as hell thievery. Big time thievery! What the hell is the matter with you?

It looks like you don't have the moral clarity to understand that taking money by force is wrong even if it is done with the government's blessing,

Moon Bats never understand economics, history, biology, climate science or ethics. You really need to take an ethics course to understand what thievery is all about. You are a very confused puppy.

 

[progressive hunter]

[


Most European countries have higher tax rates and are very successful at collecting a lot more revenue for the government as a percentage of GDP. There are several countries in Europe that have revenue collection rates that are 55% of annual GDP. In the United States, revenue collection is only 22% of annual GDP because of the much lower tax rates. So there is a lot of room to raise the top federal rate and the United States would benefit as a result.

Two things that you are missing.

The way the tax code was structured very few people ever paid at that rate. The loopholes were such that the rich were able to shield their income from being taxed at that rate.

The second thing is that the combined cost of government was lower at that time meaning less tax burden for everybody, including the rich. People paid less Federal, State and Local taxes. About 50% less for a good portion of that time frame.

It is immoral to use the government steal money from somebody else so that I can benefit. Nothing more than thievery. Progressive taxation is immoral as hell.

There are certain legitimate functions of government. Defense, police, roads, courts etc. We should all be taxed equally to pay our share the needed things. Progressive taxation is just another filthy ass way of the greedy welfare queens to raise revenue to get their free stuff and it is wrong. After all Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for supper.

The welfare queens demand to use the government to steal from the rich so they don't have to pay their own bills. Disgusting, isn't it?

Not true. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP was the same in 2017 as it was in 1976. The record for Federal spending as a percentage of GDP were the World War II years.

Its alleged that few people ever paid the highest rates from 1945 to 1980, but I have seen no proof of that except that the Budget was usually not balanced and or in surplus despite the higher top federal tax rates. Either way its debatable. What is not debatable is that the current top federal rate is too low. Most first world countries have a much higher top federal tax rate than the United States and then you have the historically higher top federal tax rates in the United States from 1945 to 1980, regardless of the debate about what people may or may not have been paying in reality.

1. Taxation is NOT THEFT
2. THE MARKET decides how much someone makes in their salary, the value of their home etc., not the worker.
3. The Worker did not create THE MARKET, he was born into it. Being lucky enough to be born into the U.S. market provides that worker unparalleled opportunity to exploit it and make large sums of money. But make no mistake, that MARKET was created by others who built it and risked their lives to defend it in multiple wars, long before the worker was even born.
4. The workers who BENEFIT THE MOST FROM THE MARKET are morally obligated to pay a much higher tax rate.


Again, these 6 items are 86% of the federal budget:

1. Defense
2. Social Security
3. Medicare
4. Medicaid
5. interest on the debt
6. Veterans Benefits.

Only a national emergency could ever justify seriously cutting any of these areas. Without Social Security and Medicare, you would create extreme poverty among older people which will have a serious negative impact on the rest of the country. The Standard Of Living in the rest of the country would drop, essentially turning the United States into a third world country when it comes to average standard of living.

All countries in the first world provide similar programs like Social Security and Medicare to its citizens. Its only in the THIRD WORLD that they don't. We don't want are society to become more structured and like that of the average country in Sub Saharan Africa. It would in the long run weaken the country in many ways. Social Security and Medicare came about after the experience of the GREAT DEPRESSION in the 1930s. The vast majority of the population wants the programs continued and there is NO serious candidate for President that plans to do away with these programs. Even Donald Trump supports these programs.

if taxation isnt theft then why do they use a gun???

Your salary, the value of your home, property, is decided by the United Sates MARKET. Since you get your money from the U.S. market, you owe the U.S. government some of that money back in taxes. The laws of the U.S. government and the U.S. military created and allow the U.S. market to continue to exist. Since you born into this system and receive money from it and exploit it, you must give some money back in the form of taxes to help keep it going. The U.S. market and its wealth was here long before you were born. You were just lucky enough to be born into it. The more successful you are in this market and country, the more you must give back in order to keep it going.

says who???

the constitution is very clear why taxs are needed and that crap isnt in it

 

[U2Edge]

[


Most European countries have higher tax rates and are very successful at collecting a lot more revenue for the government as a percentage of GDP. There are several countries in Europe that have revenue collection rates that are 55% of annual GDP. In the United States, revenue collection is only 22% of annual GDP because of the much lower tax rates. So there is a lot of room to raise the top federal rate and the United States would benefit as a result.

Two things that you are missing.

The way the tax code was structured very few people ever paid at that rate. The loopholes were such that the rich were able to shield their income from being taxed at that rate.

The second thing is that the combined cost of government was lower at that time meaning less tax burden for everybody, including the rich. People paid less Federal, State and Local taxes. About 50% less for a good portion of that time frame.

It is immoral to use the government steal money from somebody else so that I can benefit. Nothing more than thievery. Progressive taxation is immoral as hell.

There are certain legitimate functions of government. Defense, police, roads, courts etc. We should all be taxed equally to pay our share the needed things. Progressive taxation is just another filthy ass way of the greedy welfare queens to raise revenue to get their free stuff and it is wrong. After all Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for supper.

The welfare queens demand to use the government to steal from the rich so they don't have to pay their own bills. Disgusting, isn't it?

Not true. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP was the same in 2017 as it was in 1976. The record for Federal spending as a percentage of GDP were the World War II years.

Its alleged that few people ever paid the highest rates from 1945 to 1980, but I have seen no proof of that except that the Budget was usually not balanced and or in surplus despite the higher top federal tax rates. Either way its debatable. What is not debatable is that the current top federal rate is too low. Most first world countries have a much higher top federal tax rate than the United States and then you have the historically higher top federal tax rates in the United States from 1945 to 1980, regardless of the debate about what people may or may not have been paying in reality.

1. Taxation is NOT THEFT
2. THE MARKET decides how much someone makes in their salary, the value of their home etc., not the worker.
3. The Worker did not create THE MARKET, he was born into it. Being lucky enough to be born into the U.S. market provides that worker unparalleled opportunity to exploit it and make large sums of money. But make no mistake, that MARKET was created by others who built it and risked their lives to defend it in multiple wars, long before the worker was even born.
4. The workers who BENEFIT THE MOST FROM THE MARKET are morally obligated to pay a much higher tax rate.


Again, these 6 items are 86% of the federal budget:

1. Defense
2. Social Security
3. Medicare
4. Medicaid
5. interest on the debt
6. Veterans Benefits.

Only a national emergency could ever justify seriously cutting any of these areas. Without Social Security and Medicare, you would create extreme poverty among older people which will have a serious negative impact on the rest of the country. The Standard Of Living in the rest of the country would drop, essentially turning the United States into a third world country when it comes to average standard of living.

All countries in the first world provide similar programs like Social Security and Medicare to its citizens. Its only in the THIRD WORLD that they don't. We don't want are society to become more structured and like that of the average country in Sub Saharan Africa. It would in the long run weaken the country in many ways. Social Security and Medicare came about after the experience of the GREAT DEPRESSION in the 1930s. The vast majority of the population wants the programs continued and there is NO serious candidate for President that plans to do away with these programs. Even Donald Trump supports these programs.

You are confused.

Taxation can be thievery just like an alley mugging. In a welfare state like this country has now it is a state sponsored mugging.

Democracy can be just as oppressive as any other kind of government. It can rob you of liberty just like any other kind of government. It can steal your money just like any other kind of government.

When the majority uses the filthy ass government to require that I give them my money that is thievery just like any other kind of thievery.

When the fucking government takes the money that I make and gives to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal that is thievery as sure as hell.

I'm not confused because I understand how the United States and the United States market were built. What you EARN is decided by the U.S. Market. In return for the benefit of being able to earn money and exploit that U.S. market, you must give back some of what you earned in taxes. Without the MARKET you would not have that money. Its as simple as that.

If you don't like that system, your free to move to Somalia where there is no government and no taxes to pay to a government. None of this alleged theft you claim of in Somalia by a central government. Sounds like your dream environment.

careful there U2 youre bordering on fascism with this one,,,

"In return for the benefit of being able to earn money and exploit that U.S. market,"

taxs are meant to pay the debts of the country and not so the feds can stick their hand in my pocket because I decided to work for a living

Any money you receive from work you do in this country comes from the U.S. market. That simple fact means you must pay back some of that money in taxes. Its how the system works.

Government is not fascism. Without the U.S. government, the U.S. market, from where you received the money for your work, would cease to exist.

Remember, your lucky you were born in the United States. Imagine what your life would be like if you were born in Somalia. Somalia does not sound like a lot of fun, but at least there would be no government stealing "your money".

 

[U2Edge]

[


Most European countries have higher tax rates and are very successful at collecting a lot more revenue for the government as a percentage of GDP. There are several countries in Europe that have revenue collection rates that are 55% of annual GDP. In the United States, revenue collection is only 22% of annual GDP because of the much lower tax rates. So there is a lot of room to raise the top federal rate and the United States would benefit as a result.

Two things that you are missing.

The way the tax code was structured very few people ever paid at that rate. The loopholes were such that the rich were able to shield their income from being taxed at that rate.

The second thing is that the combined cost of government was lower at that time meaning less tax burden for everybody, including the rich. People paid less Federal, State and Local taxes. About 50% less for a good portion of that time frame.

It is immoral to use the government steal money from somebody else so that I can benefit. Nothing more than thievery. Progressive taxation is immoral as hell.

There are certain legitimate functions of government. Defense, police, roads, courts etc. We should all be taxed equally to pay our share the needed things. Progressive taxation is just another filthy ass way of the greedy welfare queens to raise revenue to get their free stuff and it is wrong. After all Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for supper.

The welfare queens demand to use the government to steal from the rich so they don't have to pay their own bills. Disgusting, isn't it?

Not true. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP was the same in 2017 as it was in 1976. The record for Federal spending as a percentage of GDP were the World War II years.

Its alleged that few people ever paid the highest rates from 1945 to 1980, but I have seen no proof of that except that the Budget was usually not balanced and or in surplus despite the higher top federal tax rates. Either way its debatable. What is not debatable is that the current top federal rate is too low. Most first world countries have a much higher top federal tax rate than the United States and then you have the historically higher top federal tax rates in the United States from 1945 to 1980, regardless of the debate about what people may or may not have been paying in reality.

1. Taxation is NOT THEFT
2. THE MARKET decides how much someone makes in their salary, the value of their home etc., not the worker.
3. The Worker did not create THE MARKET, he was born into it. Being lucky enough to be born into the U.S. market provides that worker unparalleled opportunity to exploit it and make large sums of money. But make no mistake, that MARKET was created by others who built it and risked their lives to defend it in multiple wars, long before the worker was even born.
4. The workers who BENEFIT THE MOST FROM THE MARKET are morally obligated to pay a much higher tax rate.


Again, these 6 items are 86% of the federal budget:

1. Defense
2. Social Security
3. Medicare
4. Medicaid
5. interest on the debt
6. Veterans Benefits.

Only a national emergency could ever justify seriously cutting any of these areas. Without Social Security and Medicare, you would create extreme poverty among older people which will have a serious negative impact on the rest of the country. The Standard Of Living in the rest of the country would drop, essentially turning the United States into a third world country when it comes to average standard of living.

All countries in the first world provide similar programs like Social Security and Medicare to its citizens. Its only in the THIRD WORLD that they don't. We don't want are society to become more structured and like that of the average country in Sub Saharan Africa. It would in the long run weaken the country in many ways. Social Security and Medicare came about after the experience of the GREAT DEPRESSION in the 1930s. The vast majority of the population wants the programs continued and there is NO serious candidate for President that plans to do away with these programs. Even Donald Trump supports these programs.

if taxation isnt theft then why do they use a gun???

Your salary, the value of your home, property, is decided by the United Sates MARKET. Since you get your money from the U.S. market, you owe the U.S. government some of that money back in taxes. The laws of the U.S. government and the U.S. military created and allow the U.S. market to continue to exist. Since you born into this system and receive money from it and exploit it, you must give some money back in the form of taxes to help keep it going. The U.S. market and its wealth was here long before you were born. You were just lucky enough to be born into it. The more successful you are in this market and country, the more you must give back in order to keep it going.

says who???

the constitution is very clear why taxs are needed and that crap isnt in it

Says reality. The value of your home, how much it is worth, is decided by the MARKET.

 

[progressive hunter]

Two things that you are missing.

The way the tax code was structured very few people ever paid at that rate. The loopholes were such that the rich were able to shield their income from being taxed at that rate.

The second thing is that the combined cost of government was lower at that time meaning less tax burden for everybody, including the rich. People paid less Federal, State and Local taxes. About 50% less for a good portion of that time frame.

It is immoral to use the government steal money from somebody else so that I can benefit. Nothing more than thievery. Progressive taxation is immoral as hell.

There are certain legitimate functions of government. Defense, police, roads, courts etc. We should all be taxed equally to pay our share the needed things. Progressive taxation is just another filthy ass way of the greedy welfare queens to raise revenue to get their free stuff and it is wrong. After all Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for supper.

The welfare queens demand to use the government to steal from the rich so they don't have to pay their own bills. Disgusting, isn't it?

Not true. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP was the same in 2017 as it was in 1976. The record for Federal spending as a percentage of GDP were the World War II years.

Its alleged that few people ever paid the highest rates from 1945 to 1980, but I have seen no proof of that except that the Budget was usually not balanced and or in surplus despite the higher top federal tax rates. Either way its debatable. What is not debatable is that the current top federal rate is too low. Most first world countries have a much higher top federal tax rate than the United States and then you have the historically higher top federal tax rates in the United States from 1945 to 1980, regardless of the debate about what people may or may not have been paying in reality.

1. Taxation is NOT THEFT
2. THE MARKET decides how much someone makes in their salary, the value of their home etc., not the worker.
3. The Worker did not create THE MARKET, he was born into it. Being lucky enough to be born into the U.S. market provides that worker unparalleled opportunity to exploit it and make large sums of money. But make no mistake, that MARKET was created by others who built it and risked their lives to defend it in multiple wars, long before the worker was even born.
4. The workers who BENEFIT THE MOST FROM THE MARKET are morally obligated to pay a much higher tax rate.


Again, these 6 items are 86% of the federal budget:

1. Defense
2. Social Security
3. Medicare
4. Medicaid
5. interest on the debt
6. Veterans Benefits.

Only a national emergency could ever justify seriously cutting any of these areas. Without Social Security and Medicare, you would create extreme poverty among older people which will have a serious negative impact on the rest of the country. The Standard Of Living in the rest of the country would drop, essentially turning the United States into a third world country when it comes to average standard of living.

All countries in the first world provide similar programs like Social Security and Medicare to its citizens. Its only in the THIRD WORLD that they don't. We don't want are society to become more structured and like that of the average country in Sub Saharan Africa. It would in the long run weaken the country in many ways. Social Security and Medicare came about after the experience of the GREAT DEPRESSION in the 1930s. The vast majority of the population wants the programs continued and there is NO serious candidate for President that plans to do away with these programs. Even Donald Trump supports these programs.

if taxation isnt theft then why do they use a gun???

Your salary, the value of your home, property, is decided by the United Sates MARKET. Since you get your money from the U.S. market, you owe the U.S. government some of that money back in taxes. The laws of the U.S. government and the U.S. military created and allow the U.S. market to continue to exist. Since you born into this system and receive money from it and exploit it, you must give some money back in the form of taxes to help keep it going. The U.S. market and its wealth was here long before you were born. You were just lucky enough to be born into it. The more successful you are in this market and country, the more you must give back in order to keep it going.

says who???

the constitution is very clear why taxs are needed and that crap isnt in it

Says reality. The value of your home, how much it is worth, is decided by the MARKET.

so,,,whats that got to do with the constitution and taxs???

 

[progressive hunter]

Two things that you are missing.

The way the tax code was structured very few people ever paid at that rate. The loopholes were such that the rich were able to shield their income from being taxed at that rate.

The second thing is that the combined cost of government was lower at that time meaning less tax burden for everybody, including the rich. People paid less Federal, State and Local taxes. About 50% less for a good portion of that time frame.

It is immoral to use the government steal money from somebody else so that I can benefit. Nothing more than thievery. Progressive taxation is immoral as hell.

There are certain legitimate functions of government. Defense, police, roads, courts etc. We should all be taxed equally to pay our share the needed things. Progressive taxation is just another filthy ass way of the greedy welfare queens to raise revenue to get their free stuff and it is wrong. After all Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for supper.

The welfare queens demand to use the government to steal from the rich so they don't have to pay their own bills. Disgusting, isn't it?

Not true. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP was the same in 2017 as it was in 1976. The record for Federal spending as a percentage of GDP were the World War II years.

Its alleged that few people ever paid the highest rates from 1945 to 1980, but I have seen no proof of that except that the Budget was usually not balanced and or in surplus despite the higher top federal tax rates. Either way its debatable. What is not debatable is that the current top federal rate is too low. Most first world countries have a much higher top federal tax rate than the United States and then you have the historically higher top federal tax rates in the United States from 1945 to 1980, regardless of the debate about what people may or may not have been paying in reality.

1. Taxation is NOT THEFT
2. THE MARKET decides how much someone makes in their salary, the value of their home etc., not the worker.
3. The Worker did not create THE MARKET, he was born into it. Being lucky enough to be born into the U.S. market provides that worker unparalleled opportunity to exploit it and make large sums of money. But make no mistake, that MARKET was created by others who built it and risked their lives to defend it in multiple wars, long before the worker was even born.
4. The workers who BENEFIT THE MOST FROM THE MARKET are morally obligated to pay a much higher tax rate.


Again, these 6 items are 86% of the federal budget:

1. Defense
2. Social Security
3. Medicare
4. Medicaid
5. interest on the debt
6. Veterans Benefits.

Only a national emergency could ever justify seriously cutting any of these areas. Without Social Security and Medicare, you would create extreme poverty among older people which will have a serious negative impact on the rest of the country. The Standard Of Living in the rest of the country would drop, essentially turning the United States into a third world country when it comes to average standard of living.

All countries in the first world provide similar programs like Social Security and Medicare to its citizens. Its only in the THIRD WORLD that they don't. We don't want are society to become more structured and like that of the average country in Sub Saharan Africa. It would in the long run weaken the country in many ways. Social Security and Medicare came about after the experience of the GREAT DEPRESSION in the 1930s. The vast majority of the population wants the programs continued and there is NO serious candidate for President that plans to do away with these programs. Even Donald Trump supports these programs.

You are confused.

Taxation can be thievery just like an alley mugging. In a welfare state like this country has now it is a state sponsored mugging.

Democracy can be just as oppressive as any other kind of government. It can rob you of liberty just like any other kind of government. It can steal your money just like any other kind of government.

When the majority uses the filthy ass government to require that I give them my money that is thievery just like any other kind of thievery.

When the fucking government takes the money that I make and gives to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal that is thievery as sure as hell.

I'm not confused because I understand how the United States and the United States market were built. What you EARN is decided by the U.S. Market. In return for the benefit of being able to earn money and exploit that U.S. market, you must give back some of what you earned in taxes. Without the MARKET you would not have that money. Its as simple as that.

If you don't like that system, your free to move to Somalia where there is no government and no taxes to pay to a government. None of this alleged theft you claim of in Somalia by a central government. Sounds like your dream environment.

careful there U2 youre bordering on fascism with this one,,,

"In return for the benefit of being able to earn money and exploit that U.S. market,"

taxs are meant to pay the debts of the country and not so the feds can stick their hand in my pocket because I decided to work for a living

Any money you receive from work you do in this country comes from the U.S. market. That simple fact means you must pay back some of that money in taxes. Its how the system works.

Government is not fascism. Without the U.S. government, the U.S. market, from where you received the money for your work, would cease to exist.

Remember, your lucky you were born in the United States. Imagine what your life would be like if you were born in Somalia. Somalia does not sound like a lot of fun, but at least there would be no government stealing "your money".

lets stay away from the world of make believe and talk reality


where in the constitution is that stated???

 

[U2Edge]

[


Most European countries have higher tax rates and are very successful at collecting a lot more revenue for the government as a percentage of GDP. There are several countries in Europe that have revenue collection rates that are 55% of annual GDP. In the United States, revenue collection is only 22% of annual GDP because of the much lower tax rates. So there is a lot of room to raise the top federal rate and the United States would benefit as a result.

Two things that you are missing.

The way the tax code was structured very few people ever paid at that rate. The loopholes were such that the rich were able to shield their income from being taxed at that rate.

The second thing is that the combined cost of government was lower at that time meaning less tax burden for everybody, including the rich. People paid less Federal, State and Local taxes. About 50% less for a good portion of that time frame.

It is immoral to use the government steal money from somebody else so that I can benefit. Nothing more than thievery. Progressive taxation is immoral as hell.

There are certain legitimate functions of government. Defense, police, roads, courts etc. We should all be taxed equally to pay our share the needed things. Progressive taxation is just another filthy ass way of the greedy welfare queens to raise revenue to get their free stuff and it is wrong. After all Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for supper.

The welfare queens demand to use the government to steal from the rich so they don't have to pay their own bills. Disgusting, isn't it?

Not true. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP was the same in 2017 as it was in 1976. The record for Federal spending as a percentage of GDP were the World War II years.

Its alleged that few people ever paid the highest rates from 1945 to 1980, but I have seen no proof of that except that the Budget was usually not balanced and or in surplus despite the higher top federal tax rates. Either way its debatable. What is not debatable is that the current top federal rate is too low. Most first world countries have a much higher top federal tax rate than the United States and then you have the historically higher top federal tax rates in the United States from 1945 to 1980, regardless of the debate about what people may or may not have been paying in reality.

1. Taxation is NOT THEFT
2. THE MARKET decides how much someone makes in their salary, the value of their home etc., not the worker.
3. The Worker did not create THE MARKET, he was born into it. Being lucky enough to be born into the U.S. market provides that worker unparalleled opportunity to exploit it and make large sums of money. But make no mistake, that MARKET was created by others who built it and risked their lives to defend it in multiple wars, long before the worker was even born.
4. The workers who BENEFIT THE MOST FROM THE MARKET are morally obligated to pay a much higher tax rate.


Again, these 6 items are 86% of the federal budget:

1. Defense
2. Social Security
3. Medicare
4. Medicaid
5. interest on the debt
6. Veterans Benefits.

Only a national emergency could ever justify seriously cutting any of these areas. Without Social Security and Medicare, you would create extreme poverty among older people which will have a serious negative impact on the rest of the country. The Standard Of Living in the rest of the country would drop, essentially turning the United States into a third world country when it comes to average standard of living.

All countries in the first world provide similar programs like Social Security and Medicare to its citizens. Its only in the THIRD WORLD that they don't. We don't want are society to become more structured and like that of the average country in Sub Saharan Africa. It would in the long run weaken the country in many ways. Social Security and Medicare came about after the experience of the GREAT DEPRESSION in the 1930s. The vast majority of the population wants the programs continued and there is NO serious candidate for President that plans to do away with these programs. Even Donald Trump supports these programs.

You are confused.

Taxation can be thievery just like an alley mugging. In a welfare state like this country has now it is a state sponsored mugging.

Democracy can be just as oppressive as any other kind of government. It can rob you of liberty just like any other kind of government. It can steal your money just like any other kind of government.

When the majority uses the filthy ass government to require that I give them my money that is thievery just like any other kind of thievery.

When the fucking government takes the money that I make and gives to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal that is thievery as sure as hell.

I'm not confused because I understand how the United States and the United States market were built. What you EARN is decided by the U.S. Market. In return for the benefit of being able to earn money and exploit that U.S. market, you must give back some of what you earned in taxes. Without the MARKET you would not have that money. Its as simple as that.

If you don't like that system, your free to move to Somalia where there is no government and no taxes to pay to a government. None of this alleged theft you claim of in Somalia by a central government. Sounds like your dream environment.

You are really confused Moon Bat.

If you and a majority of your greedy worthless asshole buddies use the government system to steal my money to buy your food stamps and your medical care then that is sure as hell thievery. Big time thievery! What the hell is the matter with you?

It looks like you don't have the moral clarity to understand that taking money by force is wrong even if it is done with the government's blessing,

Moon Bats never understand economics, history, biology, climate science or ethics. You really need to take an ethics course to understand what thievery is all about. You are a very confused puppy.

I'm not confused. I also left name calling behind in third grade.

Again, what ever money you make from your job, your salary, is decided by THE MARKET. You did not create that market, you were born into it. Because you benefit from it, you must pay some of that money back in the form of taxes. Without that market, you would not have any of that money to begin with.

 

[Flash]

[


Most European countries have higher tax rates and are very successful at collecting a lot more revenue for the government as a percentage of GDP. There are several countries in Europe that have revenue collection rates that are 55% of annual GDP. In the United States, revenue collection is only 22% of annual GDP because of the much lower tax rates. So there is a lot of room to raise the top federal rate and the United States would benefit as a result.

Two things that you are missing.

The way the tax code was structured very few people ever paid at that rate. The loopholes were such that the rich were able to shield their income from being taxed at that rate.

The second thing is that the combined cost of government was lower at that time meaning less tax burden for everybody, including the rich. People paid less Federal, State and Local taxes. About 50% less for a good portion of that time frame.

It is immoral to use the government steal money from somebody else so that I can benefit. Nothing more than thievery. Progressive taxation is immoral as hell.

There are certain legitimate functions of government. Defense, police, roads, courts etc. We should all be taxed equally to pay our share the needed things. Progressive taxation is just another filthy ass way of the greedy welfare queens to raise revenue to get their free stuff and it is wrong. After all Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for supper.

The welfare queens demand to use the government to steal from the rich so they don't have to pay their own bills. Disgusting, isn't it?

Not true. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP was the same in 2017 as it was in 1976. The record for Federal spending as a percentage of GDP were the World War II years.

Its alleged that few people ever paid the highest rates from 1945 to 1980, but I have seen no proof of that except that the Budget was usually not balanced and or in surplus despite the higher top federal tax rates. Either way its debatable. What is not debatable is that the current top federal rate is too low. Most first world countries have a much higher top federal tax rate than the United States and then you have the historically higher top federal tax rates in the United States from 1945 to 1980, regardless of the debate about what people may or may not have been paying in reality.

1. Taxation is NOT THEFT
2. THE MARKET decides how much someone makes in their salary, the value of their home etc., not the worker.
3. The Worker did not create THE MARKET, he was born into it. Being lucky enough to be born into the U.S. market provides that worker unparalleled opportunity to exploit it and make large sums of money. But make no mistake, that MARKET was created by others who built it and risked their lives to defend it in multiple wars, long before the worker was even born.
4. The workers who BENEFIT THE MOST FROM THE MARKET are morally obligated to pay a much higher tax rate.


Again, these 6 items are 86% of the federal budget:

1. Defense
2. Social Security
3. Medicare
4. Medicaid
5. interest on the debt
6. Veterans Benefits.

Only a national emergency could ever justify seriously cutting any of these areas. Without Social Security and Medicare, you would create extreme poverty among older people which will have a serious negative impact on the rest of the country. The Standard Of Living in the rest of the country would drop, essentially turning the United States into a third world country when it comes to average standard of living.

All countries in the first world provide similar programs like Social Security and Medicare to its citizens. Its only in the THIRD WORLD that they don't. We don't want are society to become more structured and like that of the average country in Sub Saharan Africa. It would in the long run weaken the country in many ways. Social Security and Medicare came about after the experience of the GREAT DEPRESSION in the 1930s. The vast majority of the population wants the programs continued and there is NO serious candidate for President that plans to do away with these programs. Even Donald Trump supports these programs.

if taxation isnt theft then why do they use a gun???

Your salary, the value of your home, property, is decided by the United Sates MARKET. Since you get your money from the U.S. market, you owe the U.S. government some of that money back in taxes. The laws of the U.S. government and the U.S. military created and allow the U.S. market to continue to exist. Since you born into this system and receive money from it and exploit it, you must give some money back in the form of taxes to help keep it going. The U.S. market and its wealth was here long before you were born. You were just lucky enough to be born into it. The more successful you are in this market and country, the more you must give back in order to keep it going.

You are confused Moon Bat.

Taxes are the way to raise money to pay government bills.

There is a legitimate need for some minimal government services like defense, courts, police etc. Nobody has any problem paying their fair share of that.

However, we live in big bloated, out of control debt ridden welfare state that spend $4 trillion a year mostly on non necessary shit like welfare and entitlements and almost any kind of wasteful expenditure you can think of.

Greedy assholes have learned they can use the government to steal what they don't earn themselves. That $4 trillion a year is one hellva honey pot for the taking, isn't it? That is despicable, isn't it?

Meanwhile productive people get the bill for that thievery. It is called taxes. Go look it up,