Who wants to defend the Federal Income Tax?

[Jarlaxle]

We Don't Owe a Living to Those Who Own the World

The HeirHeads only claim it is their property. We don't have to listen to that theft of what they themselves didn't earn, unless, say, they were child actors and their parents kept what they made at that.

This is no different from the assumption of a son of a pro athlete claiming he is owed Daddy' position on the team.

If someone isn't punished for a crime of his father when the father dies before the case comes up, he shouldn't be rewarded for the success of his father, either.

Preppy-lovers, who hate their own Daddies for not getting rich and spoiling them, ruled that Ken Lay's loot didn't have to pay for the crimes he committed to make it, because that would be cheating his heirs, who didn't commit those crimes.

That shows how ridiculous this Juniorocracy is. They didn't do anything to deserve that loot, either, even if it had been honestly earned. Also, if they inherit stocks, they don't have to pay capital gains on the original price, only on the increase after they inherited it.

Nowhere on this Netrix is the heiristocracy attacked. Sure, there will be some weak throwaway lines about it, but only if the poster is on a different fake-side, not about the HeirHeads who run his own side. For example, a few plebeian comments about Dubya, but never the same judgment applied to the Kennedys.

Juniorocracy

If the Snob Mob is on your side, you can snuff everybody else with the stuff your heroes got from their Daddies.

"If You Can't Beat Them, Join Them and Then Rule Them"

The logical conclusion is that the Democrats were taken over by people who used to become Republican leaders.

Inheritance Is the Root of All Evil

So by opposing what Plutes call the "Death Tax," you'd rather tax the living than the dead. You must believe in ghosts.

Not only are you taxed in their place, but you have to take a pay cut so your bosses can buy expensive toys for their brats.

From children's television shows, Americans were brought up to hate their Daddies for not being able to afford the expensive toys advertised. That is how the ruling class created wannabe Preppies.

No Progressive Tax When Only 100% Inheritance Tax Is Needed

Of course businesses do that. They extract greater profit margins from their deluxe products that are designed to be sold only to customers that can afford them, such as first-class seats on airlines.

We Get the Best Science Daddy's Money Can Buy

Driving is masculine. Our rulers are sissyboys who hate all masculine images. Everything in the Preppy Progressives' agenda is based on their spoiled-putrid personalities, nothing based on the reasons they preach.

Skinny, hollow-chested little weaklings have a pathological hatred of muscle cars. Pussy-whipped wimps and Incels hate chick magnets. The ruling class's wannabe flunkies who hide away in college hate car-owning townies.

Preppy-Lovers Never Practice What They Preach

Instead, take the unearned money of inheritance and trust funds. Your fake outrage covers up for the parasites you really care about. The rest of us can go eat cake.

Serfs Surfing the Net on Behalf of Their Preppy Masters

All these plebeian taxes remind me of the scene in The Exorcist in which the attending priest described the different personalities of the demons. The exorcist answered, "There is only one," meaning Satan was trying to confuse the other priest.

Birth privileges are America's Satan. Brought over from Europe like plague-rats on The Mayflower.

So...do you have anything INTELLIGENT to add, or are you just posting nonsense to pad your postcount again?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

You use the word "Marxist" the way liberals use the word racist: not as a descriptive term, but as a form of name calling, which is the lowest form of discord.

Do you know what a Marxist is? Have you read Marx? I read some of him in college. I have read The Communist Manifesto several times. When I took a fascinating seminar on Das Kapital given by the American Communist Party I already owned most of the books on the reading list, including all there volumes of Das Kapital, printed in Moscow by Progress Publishers.

When I showed my father the reading list for the seminar, Dad, who was an economist, said, "The man leading the seminar knows a lot about economics."

Indeed. Although the card carrying member of the American Communist Party earned his living as a physicist, he knew a lot about many things. While performing his day job, and leading the seminar, he was translating a book from Russian to Swedish on behalf of the Soviet government.

I believe one should read a political thinker for insight, rather than doctrine.

As I am sure you know, Edmund Burke is considered to the the founder of British conservatism. From him I have learned to be pessimistic about human nature and human potential. I have learned that there is often wisdom in tradition.

I think Marx had two valid insights, and that he was mistaken about everything else. His insights are: the natural tendency of capitalism is to accumulate wealth and income at the top; partly as a result capitalism goes through increasingly destructive economic downturns.

That is what did happen from the publication of The Communist Manifesto in 1848 to the Stock Market Crash of 1929. President Franklin Roosevelt countered these tendencies with steeply progressive taxation, a minimum wage, strong labor unions, and other reforms. As a result the United Stated developed the largest and richest middle class in the world.

President Ronald Reagan countered these reforms by cutting taxes for the rich. Consequently wealth again accumulates at the top. The national debt has grown. Recessions have become longer and deeper. They are often followed by "jobless recoveries" when the gross domestic product (GDP) grows, but unemployment remains high.

Marx also recommended several beneficial economic reforms, such as:

"2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax,"

and

"10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’sfactory labour in its present form."

Marx's most egregious error was his assertion, "The working men have no country."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

For most people most of the time loyalties of race, nation, and ethnicity are stronger than loyalties of class.

Marx explains the Great Depression. He does not explain the First World War, the rise of Italian Fascism, and German Nazism, and the fact that in the United States the white working class is a Republican constituency.

Communism Is State Capitalism; Capitalism Is Communism for the Rich

Marx married a countess who had enough rank to marry any king in Europe. That's all you need to know about Communist leaders' desire to be the one king ruling whole continents.

Lincoln also married an heiress. That's what he got his race-treason from. Whites who are born rich deplore and fear all other White people. Because of Social Darwinism, the heiristocrats believe they have evolved into a separate and superior race. The appeal of Communism to some of them, and laissez-faire to the others, is that those ideologies promote the inevitable historical need of absolute control by a ruling clique. With their "Born to Rule" attitude instilled by their doting fathers, that clicks for them.

 

[dblack]

So...do you have anything INTELLIGENT to add, or are you just posting nonsense to pad your postcount again?

I think it's drunk poetry hour at the senior's center.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

n Revolution."

The War on Poverty After 50 Years

------------


Obviously this was not achieved. What did happen was that millions of the working poor were turned into an unemployable underclass, the members of which often supplement their welfare checks with the gains from criminal activity.

The only politically sustainable way to end poverty, or even alleviate it, was to turn the poor until a stable working class whose members obeyed the law and paid taxes.

PSA Announcement by the Blooeys: "Hug a Thug or Bug Out!"

You can't make a citizen out of a savage. Best to secede and deport all the feral races to the Blue-State Union.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I appreciate your efforts, but if you support government that taxes at a higher rate from those with ability,

Preppy-Lovers Protect the Nobility With No Ability

You loyal serfs are White lawn-jockeys.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I want to call attention to two styles of posting.
Style 1 used by Republicans discusses topics and sticks to the topics unless derailed by Democrats and thus get sloppy and start using Democrats tactics.
Style 2 is Democrats and they spend virtually no time on the topic but immediately rush out to insult republicans and taunt them.

This may amuse Democrats but not the public at large.

We can therefore identify the post by AZrailwhale as from a Republican. He sticks to the points under consideration

That is complete bovine excrement and you know it ! I responded directly to your posts and all that you did was indicate that it would be a waste of your time to bother to respond and you did so because you have no reasonable or coherent response

 

[Robert W]

That is complete bovine excrement and you know it ! I responded directly to your posts and all that you did was indicate that it would be a waste of your time to bother to respond and you did so because you have no reasonable or coherent response

Apparently you believe you are the guilty party and are the cause of my critique of the Democrats. Perish that thought.

I cautioned you very early that concise would work very well. I was hoping to post consolidated things and not deal with a barrage of retorts.

However you do desire to be in the group of Democrats based on your taunts and insults. You made the fatal error of acting as if you speak on my behalf.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I think it's drunk poetry hour at the senior's center.

Jealous of the Talented, Inferior Minds Love Rule by Richkids Like Dumbo Dubya

Since your Preppy economic-groomers never did anything intelligent for their own money, your Lords and Ladies might pay you well for that lame and childish post.

 

[dblack]

Jealous of the Talented, Inferior Minds Love Rule by Richkids Like Dumbo Dubya

Since your Preppy economic-groomers never did anything intelligent for their own money, your Lords and Ladies might pay you well for that lame and childish post.

Groovy

 

[Orangecat]

Preppy-Lovers Protect the Nobility With No Ability

You loyal serfs are White lawn-jockeys.

You’ve been posting like a sketchy dingbat lately. Get it together.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Well you start by eliminating every federal program not specifically allowed by the Tenth Amendment. Cut the federal government down to dealing with defense, immigration, issues between the states. No more Department of Education, no more EPA, no more federal highway system, no more AMTRAK. Fund national parks entirely out of user fees. Fund the FAA from fees on the Airlines and private pilots who use its services. Cut out foreign aid entirely. Those would be good starts.

So, let me see if I understand you correctly. You want a federal government that takes no responsibility whatsoever for the well being of the citizens including the protection of the environment, maintenance of national infrastructure, social programs and foist the cost of everything from national treasures such as parks and open space to the cost of safe air and rail travel off onto the public which can ill afford it?.

All of this against the backdrop of a free market economy ( ie. Laise fair capitalism) which you no doubt support that cares nothing about the environment, exploits workers and chews them up and spits them out when it is no longer profitable to employ and maintain them, and allows to sick and hungry to languish and die if unable to care for themselves despite a cruel an d unpredictable economic environment that they cannot control?

And you want to cut foreign aid altogether? That would mean no more participation in NATO. No support for allies? Complete capitulation to adversaries' like Russia, China and Iran among others, as well as terrorist groups who would be sure to assert domination? Your draconian isolationism is reminiscent of the American and British reluctance to engage Hitler in the 1930’s allowing Nazis to roll over Europe and kill millions with impunity

In addition, that would leave the US isolated economically, socially and militarily, without access to international trade and resources depriving many US businesses of their life blood of imports and exports.

You seem to claim that you subscribe to a literal intepretation of that Constitution by stating that the only powers of the federal government are those that are enumerated therein. That of course would negate a couple of centuries of case law that says otherwise . It appears that your vision for America goes beyond that. Your proposal is intended to degrade our constitutional republic and revert to the failed Articles of Confederation where the no discernible central government

Why the Articles of Confederation Failed (thoughtco.com)

In response to widespread antipathy toward a strong central government, the Articles of Confederation kept national government weak and allowed for the states to be as independent as possible. But almost soon as the Articles took effect, problems with this approach became apparent.

So my only question is, do you realy hate America and all the we stand for that much? Or, are just plain stupid?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Apparently you believe you are the guilty party and are the cause of my critique of the Democrats. Perish that thought.

I cautioned you very early that concise would work very well. I was hoping to post consolidated things and not deal with a barrage of retorts.

However you do desire to be in the group of Democrats based on your taunts and insults. You made the fatal error of acting as if you speak on my behalf.

You're just inventing excuses to avoid dealing with the points that I made. Is that concise enough for you?

 

[Robert W]

You're just inventing excuses to avoid dealing with the points that I made. Is that concise enough for you?

What do you gain by attacking?

 

[Robert W]

So, let me see if I understand you correctly. You want a federal government that takes no responsibility whatsoever for the well being of the citizens including the protection of the environment, maintenance of national infrastructure, social programs and foist the cost of everything from national treasures such as parks and open space to the cost of safe air and rail travel off onto the public which can ill afford it?. All of this against the backdrop of a free market economy ( ie. Laise fair capitalism) which you no doubt support that cares nothing about the environment, exploits workers and chews them up and spits them out when it is no longer profitable to employ and maintain them, and allows to sick and hungry to languish and die if unable to care for themselves despite a cruel an d unpredictable economic environment that they cannot control?

And you want to cut foreign aid altogether? That would mean no more participation in NATO. No support for allies? Complete capitulation to adversaries' like Russia, China and Iran among others, as well as terrorist groups who would be sure to assert domination? Your draconian isolationism is reminiscent of the American and British reluctance to engage Hitler in the 1930’s allowing Nazis to roll over Europe and kill millions with impunity

In addition, that would leave the US as an isolated and without access to international trade and resources depriving many US businesses of their life blood of imports and exports.

You seem to claim that you subscribe to a literal intepretation of that Constitution by stating that the only powers of the federal government are those that are enumerated therein. That of course would negate a couple of centuries of case law that says otherwise . It appears that your vision for America goes beyond that. Your proposal is intended to degrade our constitutional republic and revert to the failed Articles of Confederation where the no discernible central government

Why the Articles of Confederation Failed (thoughtco.com)


So my only question is, do you realy hate America and all the we stand for that much? Or, are just plain stupid?

That is a fucking book, not a post.

 

[BackAgain]

View attachment 839294
A steeply graduated income tax with no loop holes is the best way to make sure that idle rich pay the vast majority of taxes.

An absolutely vile and unAmerican notion.

A graduated “progressive” income tax is completely unjust.

 

[Robert W]

Thank you for being civil and not calling me a Marxist who hates America. That is about the best that I can hope for from conservatives around here. Having said that, I will add that you seem to have a strange understanding of Democrats. I’m not sure what posts you’re referring to,, but don’t recall anyone saying “I want to pay higher taxes and I don’t care what it’s used for” That is certainly not what I am saying. The basic message from Democrats and Progressives is and always has been that every one should pay their fair share and that revenue should be used in a way that maximizes the greater good. Ofcourse, we may not always agree on what exactly that means, but if we could pur aside the ideology and focus on rational problem solving we most likely can find some common ground
Talk about Scandinavian countries when I asked not to do this
How Scandinavian Countries Pay for Their Government Spending (taxfoundation.org)




You can deride that as the “Nanny State” that goes against the grain of small government ideology. I call government for the people. Government that recognizes that personal responsibility and individuality goes only so far in a cruel and unpredictable capitalist economy. If you support a free market economy, then you must also support social safety nets there are there for people when needed. The unbridled capitalism that you champion gives freedom to the capitalists. Most people only work for the capitalists. We will not thrive as a nation where peoples basic life necessities are not met, where a major illness, or just going to college can bring financial ruin upon a person . There is far to much emphasis placed on what things cost and far to little on the benefits, and worse, the cost of doing nothing because it will come back to bite you

Moving on, you seem to be saying that roads and bridges are not a valid topic in relation to the issue of federal income tax. I beg to differ. State rely heavily on federal grants to maintain infrastructure. You might recall the recent infrastructure bill signed by Biden. Most major roads and rail lines are critical to interstate commerce and therefore a federal –state responsibility.

Here in New Jersey, we have a major catastrophe waiting to happen because of Republican stupidity and twisted priorities. The two rail tunnels that connect NJ to Manhattan are well over 100 years old and are likely to fail soon, disrupting if not destroying the entire regional economy. The states simply cannot go it alone on this. Trump had put the project on the back burner, and the former Republican governor actually cancelled it once. This while giving tax breaks to the wealthy . Not smart government Now it is on track but we are racing. The federal government also provides grants for public safety such as police and fire. So no, there is no clear line between state and federal responsibility.

Regards,

Comrade, Patriot

This is the book I supposedly did not reply to.
So what are the points, concisely.
1. "you seem to have a strange understanding of Democrats"
Ans. I spent my first 42 years of life as a loyal Democrat. They are strange. Frankly they do not act as if the constitution is valid.
2. "The basic message from Democrats and Progressives is and always has been that every one should pay their fair share and that revenue should be used in a way that maximizes the greater good."
Ans. The word FAIR is FALSE. They invented the word FAIR reference to taxes. But that is not the case. Revenue should be used as dictated by the Constitution. Afterall what is the good of a written set of instructions when they are not followed by Democrats. Matter of fact, I do not recall the Constitution talking about ways that maximizes the greater good. It seems the document was crafted in a fashion that realizes this nation is now 50 states and every state has it's own government where the greater good it seems is a state burden.
3. Talk about Scandinavian countries when I asked not to do this
How Scandinavian Countries Pay for Their Government Spending (taxfoundation.org)

And off he went into the wild blue yonder. He wants is to learn from tiny countries.
Again, he wants to ignore our constitution to study something done in small countries
4. "Government that recognizes that personal responsibility and individuality goes only so far in a cruel and unpredictable capitalist economy. If you support a free market economy, then you must also support social safety nets there are there for people when needed. The unbridled capitalism that you champion gives freedom to the capitalists."
Ans. Holy cow. Government under Democrats does not give a damn about your feelings. Rather than stick to the duty of Government, it wanders off into the woods talking about the public at large. Supposedly rather than the Government being our servant, Democrats allege we are the Servants of Government. Completely ass backwards. Capitalists deliver goods, services and more because we will pay for those all. Not because of Government,. but basic economics explains this. "Free to Choose" by Milton Friedman.

Honestly, nowhere in the Constitution is the term safety net mentioned.

Intermission. Folks, I am working on this post by some dude that whined I ignored him. And now you get a hint why. It is a fucking tome.

5. "Moving on, you seem to be saying that roads and bridges are not a valid topic in relation to the issue of federal income tax. I beg to differ. State rely heavily on federal grants to maintain infrastructure. You might recall the recent infrastructure bill signed by Biden. Most major roads and rail lines are critical to interstate commerce and therefore a federal –state responsibility. "

I built some of those Roads and Bridges so know a bit about how to finance them.
I do not recall the 16th Amendment talking about them. There are parts of America where the Feds do contribute to roads and bridges. But the vast network of roads and bridges come under the States and their internal governments to maintain and in cases, construct. But even the Feds have various taxes other than taxing Incomes. They have fuel taxes for instance. And yes Mr. Democrat, that is a sales tax.
Apparently you did not read the Biden bill supposedly to be used for roads and bridges.
As it is, sales taxes are used for a lot of that.
I know of no Federal rail lines. Even Amtrak rents the use of the tracks.

As to your closing discussion of NJ, yes I have been there a few times. But I am not really up on local politics there.
Done.

Are you pleased Patriot?

 

[Hector12]

An absolutely vile and unAmerican notion.

A graduated “progressive” income tax is completely unjust.

Says you.

There is nothing radical or un American about imposing high taxes on the rich. During the Eisenhower administration, which lasted from 1953 to 1960, the top tax rate fluctuated from 91% to 92%.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

The Eisenhower administration is the "again" Trump's white blue collar workers think of when they respond positively to the slogan, "Make America great again."

 

[Hector12]

So, let me see if I understand you correctly. You want a federal government that takes no responsibility whatsoever for the well being of the citizens including the protection of the environment, maintenance of national infrastructure, social programs and foist the cost of everything from national treasures such as parks and open space to the cost of safe air and rail travel off onto the public which can ill afford it?.

All of this against the backdrop of a free market economy ( ie. Laise fair capitalism) which you no doubt support that cares nothing about the environment, exploits workers and chews them up and spits them out when it is no longer profitable to employ and maintain them, and allows to sick and hungry to languish and die if unable to care for themselves despite a cruel an d unpredictable economic environment that they cannot control?

And you want to cut foreign aid altogether? That would mean no more participation in NATO. No support for allies? Complete capitulation to adversaries' like Russia, China and Iran among others, as well as terrorist groups who would be sure to assert domination? Your draconian isolationism is reminiscent of the American and British reluctance to engage Hitler in the 1930’s allowing Nazis to roll over Europe and kill millions with impunity

In addition, that would leave the US isolated economically, socially and militarily, without access to international trade and resources depriving many US businesses of their life blood of imports and exports.

You seem to claim that you subscribe to a literal intepretation of that Constitution by stating that the only powers of the federal government are those that are enumerated therein. That of course would negate a couple of centuries of case law that says otherwise . It appears that your vision for America goes beyond that. Your proposal is intended to degrade our constitutional republic and revert to the failed Articles of Confederation where the no discernible central government

Why the Articles of Confederation Failed (thoughtco.com)


So my only question is, do you realy hate America and all the we stand for that much? Or, are just plain stupid?

The United States Constitution has lasted as long as it has because interpretations of it have changed in response to changes in public thinking. A strict interpretation of the Constitution would result in a new constitution, one explicitly giving the federal government much more power

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What do you gain by attacking?

If you think that I have attacked you , you skin is even thinner then the orange ogre

 

[BackAgain]

Says you.

Yeah. I was here when I said it.

There is nothing radical or un American about imposing high taxes on the rich.

Yes. In fact, there is. You socialist inclined dolts can’t see it because you’re too fully indoctrinated.

During the Eisenhower administration, which lasted from 1953 to 1960, the top tax rate fluctuated from 91% to 92%.

No kidding. And it was fucking dumber than dirt to tolerate it. That doesn’t make it anything other than unAmerican. I didn’t say it was unprecedented.

The Eisenhower administration is the "again" Trump's white blue collar workers think of when they respond positively to the slogan, "Make America great again."

Nope. The “again” refers to greatness, not any given Administration. Your baseless speculation doesn’t mean shit.