So...why doesn't that apply to the wealthy? Subsidies? Loopholes? Breaks?...the poor?
I'm dying to know.
The tax code was never intended to be a welfare program, that's why.
That was already addressed.
Again...because they pay taxes.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So...why doesn't that apply to the wealthy? Subsidies? Loopholes? Breaks?...the poor?
I'm dying to know.
The tax code was never intended to be a welfare program, that's why.
The working poor do.Because the mother fucking poor don't pay chit in taxes... What % of Americans are "poor." What % do they pay in all collected taxes?
And I don't know anyone that wants to tax the poor more, simply limit or end the welfare they don't pay for seeing as it fails to life anybody out of poverty as it's intention was.
The real question is why did you vote for someone that went to a well known racist church for 20+ years, is the least trusted President in US history, spies on anyone he wants, even allies... and recently took us back into Iraq after Bush got us out.
No, the GOP only has tax cuts for the rich. Not tax cuts for the lower earning classes. Why are you off script here?The bottom 47% of wage earners pay no income taxes. Who is the sponge here?
Another Billy troll thread, based on ignorance, stupidity, and blind partisan hackery.
The Reagan and Bush tax cuts caused most of that, as well as the child tax credit,
started by the Republican Congress in 1997 and added to by Bush in 2001 and 2003.
No, the GOP only has tax cuts for the rich. Not tax cuts for the lower earning classes. Why are you off script here?The bottom 47% of wage earners pay no income taxes. Who is the sponge here?
Another Billy troll thread, based on ignorance, stupidity, and blind partisan hackery.
The Reagan and Bush tax cuts caused most of that, as well as the child tax credit,
started by the Republican Congress in 1997 and added to by Bush in 2001 and 2003.
They had help.No, the GOP only has tax cuts for the rich. Not tax cuts for the lower earning classes. Why are you off script here?The bottom 47% of wage earners pay no income taxes. Who is the sponge here?
Another Billy troll thread, based on ignorance, stupidity, and blind partisan hackery.
The Reagan and Bush tax cuts caused most of that, as well as the child tax credit,
started by the Republican Congress in 1997 and added to by Bush in 2001 and 2003.
You don't dispute it. Republican tax policy created the 47%.
They had help.No, the GOP only has tax cuts for the rich. Not tax cuts for the lower earning classes. Why are you off script here?The bottom 47% of wage earners pay no income taxes. Who is the sponge here?
Another Billy troll thread, based on ignorance, stupidity, and blind partisan hackery.
The Reagan and Bush tax cuts caused most of that, as well as the child tax credit,
started by the Republican Congress in 1997 and added to by Bush in 2001 and 2003.
You don't dispute it. Republican tax policy created the 47%.
But at least you're done spewing that "tax cuts for the rich" crap that you and all your lib buddies on here dish out every day.
...the poor?
I'm dying to know.
Political parties are not legislative bodies and cannot enact or enforce law. The process to implement what you suggest would require the rewrite of 51 Constitutions and take decades to accomplish.We can do that much more simply by getting rid of social services at the federal level and letting the states manage their own welfare and education....the poor?
I'm dying to know.
Because people who earn their own money by working for it themselves
consider it to be their money first, BEFORE they pay taxes to govt.
The poor are tired of being treated as criminals for being poor.
The rich are tired of being treated as criminals for being rich.
The politicians exploit both the rich and poor from their fear of being cheated by the other.
And both parties need to separate and pay for their own programs and cost of their legislative policies
instead of making the other group feel forced to pay for things they don't believe in.
Taxpayers should only be responsible for funding govt policies we ALL agree on.
Anything we don't agree on, and/or don't trust the other parties not to screw up through govt,
should be funded separately through the party that believes in supporting such a policy.
We'd stop all the lies, propaganda, and cheating taxpayers out of our money and into debts,
if we held political parties and leaders to pay for the programs they attest will work better.
Political parties are not legislative bodies and cannot enact or enforce law. The process to impliment that would require the rewrite of 51 Constitutions and take decades to accomplish.
Instead, if we keep playing along with the games these politicians use, to blame the other party while getting away with wasting and abusing taxpayer money, then we can never catch the crooks. so we keep paying the bills, while parties and politicians distract us by pointing the finger at each other. If people of all parties got together, made lists of all the shenanigans we didn't agree to fund, authorize govt to spend waste or abuse, and demand restitution, refunds or credits back, we could reclaim all our tax money that has been wasted and invest those credits into financing solutions and reforms, while charging the costs back to the wrongdoers who ran up our debts like a bad credit card bill we never agreed to pay. I hope we get smart soon, and turn the tables on govt running completely amok, like a bull in a china shop, charging all the damaged and debts to us instead of going after the parties that profited off abuses of public resources, laws and authority for their own benefits.
Do that and get back to me in 20 years. We'll compare policy and results along with the economies of Liberal vs Conservative states.
Yes, and we can speed up this process by holding parties responsible for their own policies and programs they "believe" in funding. if liberals believe in handouts, they can pay for those through their own party programs and handout all they want to.
Other people have equal right to exercise charity through means that meet their standards of accountability, such as churches or nonprofit training programs that focus on healthy relations and development, and not just handing out funds rewarding people for having children as a welfare ticket.
Let people who believe in microlending practice that. Reward taxpayers for investing directly into cost-effective school programs, medical facilities and education, and internships that provide public services on a sustainable basis.
Give taxpayers a choice in what programs to fund under which type of management to serve the various populations. Many people would much rather fund churches and charities to do the work responsibly, rather than go through govt that can't be trusted not to muck things up.
If we organize and separate by party, then it won't take the whole state all voting in agreement on the same reforms to change the laws. We could agree to separate jurisdiction by party, or else sue to force a separation by "political beliefs".
and then the citizens are free to set up and fund their own programs through their party networks and membership base.
Only the programs that all citizens of that state agree to vote on should remain public will qualify for public funding, and the ones that don't remain private per citizens parties or other business, charity, school or nonprofit groups to manage locally.
Allowing the states to administer their own social programs and education would pit Liberal policy against Conservative policy at a level sufficient to see what works and wouldn't even require a Constitutional amendment. Simply close a few federal buildings and lay off unneeded, redundant employees.
How is that possible? The tax cuts for the bottom 47% amounted to over 100% of their income tax liabilities. The tax cuts for the rich werent even close to that.They had help.No, the GOP only has tax cuts for the rich. Not tax cuts for the lower earning classes. Why are you off script here?The bottom 47% of wage earners pay no income taxes. Who is the sponge here?
Another Billy troll thread, based on ignorance, stupidity, and blind partisan hackery.
The Reagan and Bush tax cuts caused most of that, as well as the child tax credit,
started by the Republican Congress in 1997 and added to by Bush in 2001 and 2003.
You don't dispute it. Republican tax policy created the 47%.
But at least you're done spewing that "tax cuts for the rich" crap that you and all your lib buddies on here dish out every day.
The tax cuts for the rich were even bigger.
You're an idiot. Like that's news....the poor?
I'm dying to know.
I think you need to learn the difference between a tax reduction and a tax credit. That being said, so do alot of other people.
Personally, I think the earned income credit is one of the most egregious and unjust things in the world. Why should people be taxed more for not having children? It's fucking ridiculous. What we really need is a simplified tax code that eliminates all the deductions and loopholes.
...the poor?
I'm dying to know.
The bottom 47% already not only pay no federal taxes, they get more back than they pay in. They are effectively in negative rate territory. How is that remotely "fair"??...the poor?
I'm dying to know.
So, who else to give tax breaks to if not the one's paying the bulk of taxes?
The bottom 47% already not only pay no federal taxes, they get more back than they pay in. They are effectively in negative rate territory. How is that remotely "fair"??...the poor?
I'm dying to know.
So, who else to give tax breaks to if not the one's paying the bulk of taxes?
You're an idiot. Like that's news....the poor?
I'm dying to know.
I think you need to learn the difference between a tax reduction and a tax credit. That being said, so do alot of other people.
Personally, I think the earned income credit is one of the most egregious and unjust things in the world. Why should people be taxed more for not having children? It's fucking ridiculous. What we really need is a simplified tax code that eliminates all the deductions and loopholes.
People with children are taxed less since they have greater household expenses.
Hi Ernie: what do you think the ACA was? Obama and the Democrats took a political BELIEF from the Democrats' own PLATFORM where the BELIEF in health care as a RIGHT (and also Gay marriage as a RIGHT) and LEGISLATED that as a nationalized law by majority rule. It's a political BELIEF.
blahblahblah. The state has an interest in fostering families. You want to argue the tax code shouldnt be used for social enginnering? Fine. I agree. But thats the reason.You're an idiot. Like that's news....the poor?
I'm dying to know.
I think you need to learn the difference between a tax reduction and a tax credit. That being said, so do alot of other people.
Personally, I think the earned income credit is one of the most egregious and unjust things in the world. Why should people be taxed more for not having children? It's fucking ridiculous. What we really need is a simplified tax code that eliminates all the deductions and loopholes.
People with children are taxed less since they have greater household expenses.
Rabbi demonstrating once again why he is a liberal, statist piece of shit. If you can't afford children, don't have them. It's that simple. It's not my job to pay for your children. Of course, you'll probably never understand that since you're the spawn of the entitlement junkie mentality, raised and taught to suckle at the government teat at every opportunity.
blahblahblah. The state has an interest in fostering families. You want to argue the tax code shouldnt be used for social enginnering? Fine. I agree. But thats the reason.You're an idiot. Like that's news....the poor?
I'm dying to know.
I think you need to learn the difference between a tax reduction and a tax credit. That being said, so do alot of other people.
Personally, I think the earned income credit is one of the most egregious and unjust things in the world. Why should people be taxed more for not having children? It's fucking ridiculous. What we really need is a simplified tax code that eliminates all the deductions and loopholes.
People with children are taxed less since they have greater household expenses.
Rabbi demonstrating once again why he is a liberal, statist piece of shit. If you can't afford children, don't have them. It's that simple. It's not my job to pay for your children. Of course, you'll probably never understand that since you're the spawn of the entitlement junkie mentality, raised and taught to suckle at the government teat at every opportunity.
dumbass.
I understand, and mostly agree with your argument. I would love to separate the country by political party for 20 years just to prove that one is self sustaining and viable and one is doomed to bankruptcy.Political parties are not legislative bodies and cannot enact or enforce law. The process to implement what you suggest would require the rewrite of 51 Constitutions and take decades to accomplish.We can do that much more simply by getting rid of social services at the federal level and letting the states manage their own welfare and education....the poor?
I'm dying to know.
Because people who earn their own money by working for it themselves
consider it to be their money first, BEFORE they pay taxes to govt.
The poor are tired of being treated as criminals for being poor.
The rich are tired of being treated as criminals for being rich.
The politicians exploit both the rich and poor from their fear of being cheated by the other.
And both parties need to separate and pay for their own programs and cost of their legislative policies
instead of making the other group feel forced to pay for things they don't believe in.
Taxpayers should only be responsible for funding govt policies we ALL agree on.
Anything we don't agree on, and/or don't trust the other parties not to screw up through govt,
should be funded separately through the party that believes in supporting such a policy.
We'd stop all the lies, propaganda, and cheating taxpayers out of our money and into debts,
if we held political parties and leaders to pay for the programs they attest will work better.
Political parties are not legislative bodies and cannot enact or enforce law. The process to impliment that would require the rewrite of 51 Constitutions and take decades to accomplish.
Instead, if we keep playing along with the games these politicians use, to blame the other party while getting away with wasting and abusing taxpayer money, then we can never catch the crooks. so we keep paying the bills, while parties and politicians distract us by pointing the finger at each other. If people of all parties got together, made lists of all the shenanigans we didn't agree to fund, authorize govt to spend waste or abuse, and demand restitution, refunds or credits back, we could reclaim all our tax money that has been wasted and invest those credits into financing solutions and reforms, while charging the costs back to the wrongdoers who ran up our debts like a bad credit card bill we never agreed to pay. I hope we get smart soon, and turn the tables on govt running completely amok, like a bull in a china shop, charging all the damaged and debts to us instead of going after the parties that profited off abuses of public resources, laws and authority for their own benefits.
Do that and get back to me in 20 years. We'll compare policy and results along with the economies of Liberal vs Conservative states.
Yes, and we can speed up this process by holding parties responsible for their own policies and programs they "believe" in funding. if liberals believe in handouts, they can pay for those through their own party programs and handout all they want to.
Other people have equal right to exercise charity through means that meet their standards of accountability, such as churches or nonprofit training programs that focus on healthy relations and development, and not just handing out funds rewarding people for having children as a welfare ticket.
Let people who believe in microlending practice that. Reward taxpayers for investing directly into cost-effective school programs, medical facilities and education, and internships that provide public services on a sustainable basis.
Give taxpayers a choice in what programs to fund under which type of management to serve the various populations. Many people would much rather fund churches and charities to do the work responsibly, rather than go through govt that can't be trusted not to muck things up.
If we organize and separate by party, then it won't take the whole state all voting in agreement on the same reforms to change the laws. We could agree to separate jurisdiction by party, or else sue to force a separation by "political beliefs".
and then the citizens are free to set up and fund their own programs through their party networks and membership base.
Only the programs that all citizens of that state agree to vote on should remain public will qualify for public funding, and the ones that don't remain private per citizens parties or other business, charity, school or nonprofit groups to manage locally.
Allowing the states to administer their own social programs and education would pit Liberal policy against Conservative policy at a level sufficient to see what works and wouldn't even require a Constitutional amendment. Simply close a few federal buildings and lay off unneeded, redundant employees.
Hi Ernie: what do you think the ACA was? Obama and the Democrats took a political BELIEF from the Democrats' own PLATFORM where the BELIEF in health care as a RIGHT (and also Gay marriage as a RIGHT) and LEGISLATED that as a nationalized law by majority rule. It's a political BELIEF.
So the parties already write up their OWN platforms of "political beliefs" which have become their mantras,their political RELIGION and need to fund that through their own parties. Their members can create nonprofits, businesses, schools, etc WITH THEIR OWN MONEY they already invest/donate into political campaigns, lobbies, etc. They can run their OWN programs through the private sector and keep this OUT of govt (unless all people and parties agree on those beliefs).
Why are political beliefs given special treatment over religious beliefs?
If religious beliefs don't belong in govt unless the public agrees, then the same policy should apply to political beliefs.
Otherwise, it's discrimination by creed to allow the majority party to get their beliefs mandated through govt,
punishing people of other beliefs with penalties and exclusion.
Govt cannot be abused to force people to change their beliefs. This is happening because "secular beliefs" are being pushed into govt as laws, claiming these are not religious. That's discrimination and we don't even see it.