War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[jillian]

Okay... You said: "No CREDIBLE economist thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"
I ask you for a citation and you gave me a left-wing think tank writer who is of the opinion that "few mainstream economists think [it's] worthwhile." (a far cry from no credible economist period)
Then you give me Money magazine which admits MANY economists support the idea! (definitely a far cry from 'no credible economist period'!)

I did not ask you if there were some economists who didn't like the Fair Tax idea. I didn't ask you if there were left-wing bloggers who didn't like the idea. I didn't ask you if there were people who were skeptical of it. I asked for a citation to support your claim that "No CREDIBLE economists thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"

You have FAILED to present that!

He used the word "credible". I assume he doesn't mean "credible" to you, since you seem to think only rightwing think tanks tell you anything of value.

the reality:

The flat tax is a fraud. It raises taxes on the poor and lowers them on the rich. ... The rich usually pay a higher percent of their incomes in income taxes than do the poor. A flat tax would eliminate that slight progressivity.

Nowadays most low-income households pay no federal income tax at all – a fact that sends many regressives into spasms of indignation. They conveniently ignore the fact that poor households pay a much larger share of their incomes in payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes (directly, if they own their homes; indirectly, if they rent) than do people with high incomes. ...

The truth is the current tax code treats everyone the same. It’s organized around tax brackets. Everyone whose income reaches the same bracket is treated the same as everyone else whose income reaches that bracket (apart from various deductions, exemptions, and credits, of course).

For example, no one pays any income taxes on the first $20,000 or so of their income... People in higher brackets pay a higher rate only on the portion of their income that hits that bracket — not on their entire incomes.

more at link:

Economist s View The Flat-Tax Fraud

You are talking about the "Flat Tax" and I proposed the "Fair Tax" which is not the same thing. My proposal is not based on incomes at all. It replaces income tax with consumption tax. Now.... Don't care who you are, you should have sense enough to understand the wealthy spend more consuming than poor people. Poor people would get a prebate check to cover their taxes on basic needs, so there would be no tax burden for them.

I prosed instead the CONSTITUTIONAL TAX , ie, paying for those activities SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION ----SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED


.

there is nothing unconstitutional about the income tax... no matter how many capital letters you use.

In order to determine if a law is Constitutional the individual must be familiar with the US Constitution and free from conflict of interests.

No one will assert the income tax is UNconstitutional who, as a parasite, is the recipient of its proceeds.

.

i guess all the years i studied and practiced are meaningless.

you know nothing about constitutional construction. it is not the "individual" who decides constitutionality.... wingers seem confused by this. if there is a constitutional amendment, it is, by definition, constitutional. if the high court rules something constitutional, it is also constitutional and is law.... whether we like the decision or not. i'd suggest you read marbury v madison and actually understand the cases on the supremacy clause, commerce clause and general welfare clause, in particular. after that, you can go study due process, and equal protection.

then you can say, maybe, that you know something.... but you'd actually have to understand what you're reading.

p.s. you aren't smarter or know more than ruth bader ginzburg or any other liberal justice on the court.

 

[jillian]

That's why i'm libertarian.

Libertarians are anarchists

the people who call themselves libertarians now are NOT libertarians. libertarians don't interfere with matters of reproductive choice and sexuality. what passes for libertarians today are a bunch of spoiled brats who don't want anyone telling them they have to do anything they don't want to do.

Yeah Libertarians support murder. I don't. That's why I'm a conservative and not a libertarian.

luckily we're supposed to be protected from theocrats. as much as this group of libertarians is full of it, i'd rather be around a real libertarian than a theocrat any day of the week.

oh.. and "murder" requires a specific statutory definition. termination of a pregnancy isn't it.

Yeah, because if you simply redefine what murder is, then it wouldn't be murder anymore, because it requires that man define what murder is, and if we change the definition so that me stabbing you to death, isn't murder, then it's not. Right?

Is it human? Yes. Do a DNA test. It's human.
Is it alive? Yes. It consumes oxygen, and it grows. It's alive.
Are we killing it? Yes. Clearly it's dead after this action.

Is killing it justified? No. It has broken no laws, no regulations, violated no persons.

What do you call killing a human which has broken no laws, and committed no crime? Murder.

You throw around definitions, without cause or substance, thinking that you can will meanings to change simply from desire. You don't know what you are even saying, let along what ideology others hold.

murder is a legally defined term. and my right to reproductive choice is constitutionally protected.

no matter what a bunch of radical christians want.

 

[jillian]

Libertarians are anarchists

the people who call themselves libertarians now are NOT libertarians. libertarians don't interfere with matters of reproductive choice and sexuality. what passes for libertarians today are a bunch of spoiled brats who don't want anyone telling them they have to do anything they don't want to do.

Yeah Libertarians support murder. I don't. That's why I'm a conservative and not a libertarian.

luckily we're supposed to be protected from theocrats. as much as this group of libertarians is full of it, i'd rather be around a real libertarian than a theocrat any day of the week.

oh.. and "murder" requires a specific statutory definition. termination of a pregnancy isn't it.

Yeah, because if you simply redefine what murder is, then it wouldn't be murder anymore, because it requires that man define what murder is, and if we change the definition so that me stabbing you to death, isn't murder, then it's not. Right?

Is it human? Yes. Do a DNA test. It's human.
Is it alive? Yes. It consumes oxygen, and it grows. It's alive.
Are we killing it? Yes. Clearly it's dead after this action.

Is killing it justified? No. It has broken no laws, no regulations, violated no persons.

What do you call killing a human which has broken no laws, and committed no crime? Murder.

You throw around definitions, without cause or substance, thinking that you can will meanings to change simply from desire. You don't know what you are even saying, let along what ideology others hold.

Sort of like redefining Marxism to suit contemporary politics,

they do that.

but murder IS legally defined by criminal statutes and the issue of reproductive choice is settled law.

except for the wingers.

 

[Contumacious]

He used the word "credible". I assume he doesn't mean "credible" to you, since you seem to think only rightwing think tanks tell you anything of value.

the reality:

more at link:

Economist s View The Flat-Tax Fraud

You are talking about the "Flat Tax" and I proposed the "Fair Tax" which is not the same thing. My proposal is not based on incomes at all. It replaces income tax with consumption tax. Now.... Don't care who you are, you should have sense enough to understand the wealthy spend more consuming than poor people. Poor people would get a prebate check to cover their taxes on basic needs, so there would be no tax burden for them.

I prosed instead the CONSTITUTIONAL TAX , ie, paying for those activities SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION ----SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED


.

there is nothing unconstitutional about the income tax... no matter how many capital letters you use.

In order to determine if a law is Constitutional the individual must be familiar with the US Constitution and free from conflict of interests.

No one will assert the income tax is UNconstitutional who, as a parasite, is the recipient of its proceeds.

.

i guess all the years i studied and practiced are meaningless.

Yes, yes, that appears to be the case.

you know nothing about constitutional construction.

You know nothing about corrupt judges using constitutional construction as a subterfuge for amending the same.

it is not the "individual" who decides constitutionality....

The US Constitution was adopted in 1787 in order to protect OUR INDIVIDUAL rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. You are referring to "fascism" where government officials determine what is best for the individual.

 

[BluesLegend]

Weird, MOST economists say that it's regressive? Hmm

The SS tax is regressive the flat tax treats everyone the same.

Oh it's opposite world today???

The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.

No it doesn't I don't think you understand what SS is its not some damn welfare program to put the screws to the rich . You are purchasing a retirement benefit that varies depending on how much you pay into the system. Everyone who pays on average $2,000 a year into SS will receive the exact same benefit when they retire. The more you pay in the more you get back up to the maximum benefit. In other words you get what you pay for so the poor have nothing to gripe about.

I pay the maximum into SS every year so I will receive the maximum benefit when I retire. There's no reason for me to pay more into SS I'm already buying the maximum benefit.

You are not purchasing anything. Your money is given out to current recipients and is gone. The next generation will have to pay for your benefits. And the one there after will have to pay for theirs.

It's a ponzi scheme. Take from A to pay for B. Take from B to pay for C. Take from C to pay for D. Eventually you run out of other people's money to spend, and the system crashes. That is what has been happening around the world. Greece being the worst of course, because they had the most generous pension system.

FACTBOX-Greece s pension reform bill Reuters

That was the 2010 reform. Unfortunately it wasn't enough. Because Socialism doesn't work.

Greece urges international lenders to let it delay pension reform plan - sources Reuters

Greece is planning another drastic cut in pensions. Which no doubt, that won't be enough either.

You can dress up the Social Security system all you want, with all the claims you wish. Ultimately, it is what it is. It's a failing socialized system.

You are preaching to the choir. How will congress repay the $2 trillion dollars of SS contributions they borrowed from us, hold a bake sale?

 

[Dad2three]

The SS tax is regressive the flat tax treats everyone the same.

Oh it's opposite world today???

The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.

No it doesn't I don't think you understand what SS is its not some damn welfare program to put the screws to the rich . You are purchasing a retirement benefit that varies depending on how much you pay into the system. Everyone who pays on average $2,000 a year into SS will receive the exact same benefit when they retire. The more you pay in the more you get back up to the maximum benefit. In other words you get what you pay for so the poor have nothing to gripe about.

I pay the maximum into SS every year so I will receive the maximum benefit when I retire. There's no reason for me to pay more into SS I'm already buying the maximum benefit.

You are not purchasing anything. Your money is given out to current recipients and is gone. The next generation will have to pay for your benefits. And the one there after will have to pay for theirs.

It's a ponzi scheme. Take from A to pay for B. Take from B to pay for C. Take from C to pay for D. Eventually you run out of other people's money to spend, and the system crashes. That is what has been happening around the world. Greece being the worst of course, because they had the most generous pension system.

FACTBOX-Greece s pension reform bill Reuters

That was the 2010 reform. Unfortunately it wasn't enough. Because Socialism doesn't work.

Greece urges international lenders to let it delay pension reform plan - sources Reuters

Greece is planning another drastic cut in pensions. Which no doubt, that won't be enough either.

You can dress up the Social Security system all you want, with all the claims you wish. Ultimately, it is what it is. It's a failing socialized system.

You are preaching to the choir. How will congress repay the $2 trillion dollars of SS contributions they borrowed from us, hold a bake sale?

The $2 trillion that had been raised when Ronnie increased SS taxes by 60% to hide the tax cuts on the rich?


Weird, you don't think SS will be paid back?

 

[Dad2three]

Okay... You said: "No CREDIBLE economist thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"
I ask you for a citation and you gave me a left-wing think tank writer who is of the opinion that "few mainstream economists think [it's] worthwhile." (a far cry from no credible economist period)
Then you give me Money magazine which admits MANY economists support the idea! (definitely a far cry from 'no credible economist period'!)

I did not ask you if there were some economists who didn't like the Fair Tax idea. I didn't ask you if there were left-wing bloggers who didn't like the idea. I didn't ask you if there were people who were skeptical of it. I asked for a citation to support your claim that "No CREDIBLE economists thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"

You have FAILED to present that!

He used the word "credible". I assume he doesn't mean "credible" to you, since you seem to think only rightwing think tanks tell you anything of value.

the reality:

The flat tax is a fraud. It raises taxes on the poor and lowers them on the rich. ... The rich usually pay a higher percent of their incomes in income taxes than do the poor. A flat tax would eliminate that slight progressivity.

Nowadays most low-income households pay no federal income tax at all – a fact that sends many regressives into spasms of indignation. They conveniently ignore the fact that poor households pay a much larger share of their incomes in payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes (directly, if they own their homes; indirectly, if they rent) than do people with high incomes. ...

The truth is the current tax code treats everyone the same. It’s organized around tax brackets. Everyone whose income reaches the same bracket is treated the same as everyone else whose income reaches that bracket (apart from various deductions, exemptions, and credits, of course).

For example, no one pays any income taxes on the first $20,000 or so of their income... People in higher brackets pay a higher rate only on the portion of their income that hits that bracket — not on their entire incomes.

more at link:

Economist s View The Flat-Tax Fraud

You are talking about the "Flat Tax" and I proposed the "Fair Tax" which is not the same thing. My proposal is not based on incomes at all. It replaces income tax with consumption tax. Now.... Don't care who you are, you should have sense enough to understand the wealthy spend more consuming than poor people. Poor people would get a prebate check to cover their taxes on basic needs, so there would be no tax burden for them.

I prosed instead the CONSTITUTIONAL TAX , ie, paying for those activities SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION ----SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED


.

there is nothing unconstitutional about the income tax... no matter how many capital letters you use.

In order to determine if a law is Constitutional the individual must be familiar with the US Constitution and free from conflict of interests.

No one will assert the income tax is UNconstitutional who, as a parasite, is the recipient of its proceeds.

.

You should follow Ben's advice, and go live alone among the savages, I think there may be some in Africa!

 

[Dad2three]

That's why i'm libertarian.

Libertarians are anarchists

the people who call themselves libertarians now are NOT libertarians. libertarians don't interfere with matters of reproductive choice and sexuality. what passes for libertarians today are a bunch of spoiled brats who don't want anyone telling them they have to do anything they don't want to do.

Yeah Libertarians support murder. I don't. That's why I'm a conservative and not a libertarian.

luckily we're supposed to be protected from theocrats. as much as this group of libertarians is full of it, i'd rather be around a real libertarian than a theocrat any day of the week.

oh.. and "murder" requires a specific statutory definition. termination of a pregnancy isn't it.

Yeah, because if you simply redefine what murder is, then it wouldn't be murder anymore, because it requires that man define what murder is, and if we change the definition so that me stabbing you to death, isn't murder, then it's not. Right?

Is it human? Yes. Do a DNA test. It's human.
Is it alive? Yes. It consumes oxygen, and it grows. It's alive.
Are we killing it? Yes. Clearly it's dead after this action.

Is killing it justified? No. It has broken no laws, no regulations, violated no persons.

What do you call killing a human which has broken no laws, and committed no crime? Murder.

You throw around definitions, without cause or substance, thinking that you can will meanings to change simply from desire. You don't know what you are even saying, let along what ideology others hold.

You wingnuttters

Is it viable outside the woman's womb?

NO A FETUS ISN'T A BABY

 

[Boss]

A flat tax doesn't favor anyone.

Weird, MOST economists say that it's regressive? Hmm

The SS tax is regressive the flat tax treats everyone the same.

Oh it's opposite world today???

The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.

No it doesn't I don't think you understand what SS is its not some damn welfare program to put the screws to the rich . You are purchasing a retirement benefit that varies depending on how much you pay into the system. Everyone who pays on average $2,000 a year into SS will receive the exact same benefit when they retire. The more you pay in the more you get back up to the maximum benefit. In other words you get what you pay for so the poor have nothing to gripe about.

I pay the maximum into SS every year so I will receive the maximum benefit when I retire. There's no reason for me to pay more into SS I'm already buying the maximum benefit.

I don't think you understand what SS is, and have it confused with an individual retirement plan. You do not elect to pay various amounts into SS nor is the money going into a personal account for you. Some of us have proposed allowing a partial privatization of SS to allow something like this, because it would be an improvement and would help SS remain solvent. However, the left ridicules the idea and insists on doing nothing to save the program.

If over the span of your working life, you contributed to SS 40 quarters or more, you will get a check for a specific amount each month, not based at all on what you paid in, but based on what is set by the government to pay SS recipients. When you die, your family gets a final SS payment of $212 and that's it. In the 60s, we added Medicare and Medicaid to the deal, so now you have people who draw from that pool of money who never paid a dime into SS. And that pool of money has been "borrowed" from by politicians who couldn't resist. It's now full of IOUs. This hasn't been a big deal up until now, but we currently have about 70 million baby-boomers about to retire.

 

[Dad2three]

The Sixteenth Amendment is part of the Constitution.

Federal "judges" have ruled that way even though the evidence shows that it was NEVER ratified.

.

Sixteenth Amendment ratification arguments have been rejected in every court case where they have been raised and have been identified as legally frivolous.


Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

Weird, MOST economists say that it's regressive? Hmm

The SS tax is regressive the flat tax treats everyone the same.

Oh it's opposite world today???

The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.

No it doesn't I don't think you understand what SS is its not some damn welfare program to put the screws to the rich . You are purchasing a retirement benefit that varies depending on how much you pay into the system. Everyone who pays on average $2,000 a year into SS will receive the exact same benefit when they retire. The more you pay in the more you get back up to the maximum benefit. In other words you get what you pay for so the poor have nothing to gripe about.

I pay the maximum into SS every year so I will receive the maximum benefit when I retire. There's no reason for me to pay more into SS I'm already buying the maximum benefit.

You are not purchasing anything. Your money is given out to current recipients and is gone. The next generation will have to pay for your benefits. And the one there after will have to pay for theirs.

It's a ponzi scheme. Take from A to pay for B. Take from B to pay for C. Take from C to pay for D. Eventually you run out of other people's money to spend, and the system crashes. That is what has been happening around the world. Greece being the worst of course, because they had the most generous pension system.

FACTBOX-Greece s pension reform bill Reuters

That was the 2010 reform. Unfortunately it wasn't enough. Because Socialism doesn't work.

Greece urges international lenders to let it delay pension reform plan - sources Reuters

Greece is planning another drastic cut in pensions. Which no doubt, that won't be enough either.

You can dress up the Social Security system all you want, with all the claims you wish. Ultimately, it is what it is. It's a failing socialized system.

Oh, INSURANCE, NOT a ponzi scheme


Greece? Yep, the world wide Banksters credit bubble and busr really hurt them, right?

How did that austerity conservatives preach about work in Europe again? lol

 

[Andylusion]

[...]
In short, leading figures of the Revolutionary generation, Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike, were convinced that a republic can only exist if property is broadly distributed throughout the citizenry and that great inequalities were dangerous.

The Founders on Taxation Redistribution and Property

In keeping with that fundamental wisdom, if the Founders had been able to anticipate the kind of monumental wealth the Industrial Revolution would eventually enable the Republic to generate, the Constitution would surely have prohibited the greed-driven accumulations which have led to the rise of a financial aristocracy.

As it is, a noble legislative effort was made early in the post-Depression era to prevent exploitation of the working class by enabling rise of the union movement and the imposition of regulations governing the activities of banks and the finance industry. But beginning with the Reagan Administration this effort has been incrementally sabotaged by the systematic removal and circumvention of these preventive regulations.

More specific information of this sabotage of our relatively equitable economy is contained in the extremely informative video, Inside Job, which may be viewed free of charge via the URL in my signature line.

Oh bull. You people make up crap, claim others would think the same, and have no support whatsoever for such a statement. There is nothing in the federalist papers, or any other source, that suggest anything other than a support for property rights.

And there is no financial aristocracy. The only aristocracy is of leftists who mindlessly vote for leftists who have done nothing for them, except repeat endless claims of being against the aristocracy, that they themselves are a part of.

Yeah, I've seen Inside Job, which is more propaganda than truth. Dozens of empty claims, unimportant side factoids, completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. It's funny how every time I meet some idiot who tosses around claims of aristocracy, and the founders would have supported X, they always referrence some half truth filled propaganda 'documentary' that fails to document anything. I'm only surprised you didn't start off with Michael Moron and his trash first.

 

[Lakhota]

War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

Actually, the dumbest idea in history of man was RELIGION.

 

[BluesLegend]

Oh it's opposite world today???

The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.

No it doesn't I don't think you understand what SS is its not some damn welfare program to put the screws to the rich . You are purchasing a retirement benefit that varies depending on how much you pay into the system. Everyone who pays on average $2,000 a year into SS will receive the exact same benefit when they retire. The more you pay in the more you get back up to the maximum benefit. In other words you get what you pay for so the poor have nothing to gripe about.

I pay the maximum into SS every year so I will receive the maximum benefit when I retire. There's no reason for me to pay more into SS I'm already buying the maximum benefit.

You are not purchasing anything. Your money is given out to current recipients and is gone. The next generation will have to pay for your benefits. And the one there after will have to pay for theirs.

It's a ponzi scheme. Take from A to pay for B. Take from B to pay for C. Take from C to pay for D. Eventually you run out of other people's money to spend, and the system crashes. That is what has been happening around the world. Greece being the worst of course, because they had the most generous pension system.

FACTBOX-Greece s pension reform bill Reuters

That was the 2010 reform. Unfortunately it wasn't enough. Because Socialism doesn't work.

Greece urges international lenders to let it delay pension reform plan - sources Reuters

Greece is planning another drastic cut in pensions. Which no doubt, that won't be enough either.

You can dress up the Social Security system all you want, with all the claims you wish. Ultimately, it is what it is. It's a failing socialized system.

You are preaching to the choir. How will congress repay the $2 trillion dollars of SS contributions they borrowed from us, hold a bake sale?

The $2 trillion that had been raised when Ronnie increased SS taxes by 60% to hide the tax cuts on the rich?


Weird, you don't think SS will be paid back?

Go ahead tell us how congress will repay the $2 trillion they borrowed and spent from SS. Hint, you can't.

 

[Contumacious]

He used the word "credible". I assume he doesn't mean "credible" to you, since you seem to think only rightwing think tanks tell you anything of value.

the reality:

more at link:

Economist s View The Flat-Tax Fraud

You are talking about the "Flat Tax" and I proposed the "Fair Tax" which is not the same thing. My proposal is not based on incomes at all. It replaces income tax with consumption tax. Now.... Don't care who you are, you should have sense enough to understand the wealthy spend more consuming than poor people. Poor people would get a prebate check to cover their taxes on basic needs, so there would be no tax burden for them.

I prosed instead the CONSTITUTIONAL TAX , ie, paying for those activities SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION ----SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED


.

there is nothing unconstitutional about the income tax... no matter how many capital letters you use.

In order to determine if a law is Constitutional the individual must be familiar with the US Constitution and free from conflict of interests.

No one will assert the income tax is UNconstitutional who, as a parasite, is the recipient of its proceeds.

.

You should follow Ben's advice, and go live alone among the savages, I think there may be some in Africa!

 

[BluesLegend]

War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

Actually, the dumbest idea in history of man was RELIGION.

Oh the irony.

 

[Contumacious]

He used the word "credible". I assume he doesn't mean "credible" to you, since you seem to think only rightwing think tanks tell you anything of value.

the reality:

more at link:

Economist s View The Flat-Tax Fraud

You are talking about the "Flat Tax" and I proposed the "Fair Tax" which is not the same thing. My proposal is not based on incomes at all. It replaces income tax with consumption tax. Now.... Don't care who you are, you should have sense enough to understand the wealthy spend more consuming than poor people. Poor people would get a prebate check to cover their taxes on basic needs, so there would be no tax burden for them.

I prosed instead the CONSTITUTIONAL TAX , ie, paying for those activities SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION ----SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED


.

there is nothing unconstitutional about the income tax... no matter how many capital letters you use.

In order to determine if a law is Constitutional the individual must be familiar with the US Constitution and free from conflict of interests.

No one will assert the income tax is UNconstitutional who, as a parasite, is the recipient of its proceeds.

.

You should follow Ben's advice, and go live alone among the savages, I think there may be some in Africa!

noun
noun: savage · plural noun: savages
(chiefly in historical or literary contexts) a member of a people regarded as primitive and uncivilized.


According to the definition of "savage" it conforms with fascism, socialism and scumbags such as yourself who believe in violence for stealing , looting and plundering from your neighbor.

.

 

[Contumacious]

The Sixteenth Amendment is part of the Constitution.

Federal "judges" have ruled that way even though the evidence shows that it was NEVER ratified.

.

Sixteenth Amendment ratification arguments have been rejected in every court case where they have been raised and have been identified as legally frivolous.


Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Scumbag, corrupt ignorant , federal judges have also ruled that the constitution is LEGALLY FRIVOLOUS.

.

 

[Andylusion]

Libertarians are anarchists

the people who call themselves libertarians now are NOT libertarians. libertarians don't interfere with matters of reproductive choice and sexuality. what passes for libertarians today are a bunch of spoiled brats who don't want anyone telling them they have to do anything they don't want to do.

Yeah Libertarians support murder. I don't. That's why I'm a conservative and not a libertarian.

luckily we're supposed to be protected from theocrats. as much as this group of libertarians is full of it, i'd rather be around a real libertarian than a theocrat any day of the week.

oh.. and "murder" requires a specific statutory definition. termination of a pregnancy isn't it.

Yeah, because if you simply redefine what murder is, then it wouldn't be murder anymore, because it requires that man define what murder is, and if we change the definition so that me stabbing you to death, isn't murder, then it's not. Right?

Is it human? Yes. Do a DNA test. It's human.
Is it alive? Yes. It consumes oxygen, and it grows. It's alive.
Are we killing it? Yes. Clearly it's dead after this action.

Is killing it justified? No. It has broken no laws, no regulations, violated no persons.

What do you call killing a human which has broken no laws, and committed no crime? Murder.

You throw around definitions, without cause or substance, thinking that you can will meanings to change simply from desire. You don't know what you are even saying, let along what ideology others hold.

murder is a legally defined term. and my right to reproductive choice is constitutionally protected.

no matter what a bunch of radical christians want.

Well you have the right to be wrong, and be a supporter of murder. I have the right to oppose your evil. Sucks I can vote too, huh?

 

[Skull Pilot]

A flat tax doesn't favor anyone.

Weird, MOST economists say that it's regressive? Hmm

The SS tax is regressive the flat tax treats everyone the same.

Oh it's opposite world today???

The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.

Except they get a better pay out on their INSURANCE. I know, lets get rid of the program that keeps 50% of seniors out of poverty, right? lol

No they don't. And SS keeps people in poverty not out of it.

If they owned the accounts the money was in they would truly be able to retire wealthy but as usual libs don't like to do the math