Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

Bam, exactly! So of all the taxes, why do you pick this one and say let's keep another tax? The whole point of the sales tax was to keep it flat and efficient? Why arbitrarily pick this one and saw let's keep it?

No, you tax the primary sales market only, so there aren't embedded taxes for the components of their products just like my business doesn't have to pay sales taxes on the components of our products now. There would be some, like when we buy office supplies and that sort of thing. Remember though I didn't say the sale tax was perfect, only that it's the best option

Land is not a thing that you can tax just once and be done with it... land lasts forever... the taxes have to be done over time for it.

There's no reason to tax property at all. How can you claim you own a piece of property if you have to pay ransom to the state government every year?

Don't like it you can live on a boat or an RV.

Um...they charge property taxes for those too...

Um... no they don't.

They are unless you live in a property tax free state, in which case your statement would be a truism

 

[RKMBrown]

Land is not a thing that you can tax just once and be done with it... land lasts forever... the taxes have to be done over time for it.

There's no reason to tax property at all. How can you claim you own a piece of property if you have to pay ransom to the state government every year?

Don't like it you can live on a boat or an RV.

Um...they charge property taxes for those too...

Um... no they don't.

They are unless you live in a property tax free state, in which case your statement would be a truism

Do you have a link for property tax rates of boats and RVs that I can look at? NVM I found one... it's in CALIFORNIA and SC. ROFL I've never lived there but yeah OMFG they have property taxes for boats in California. ROFL Note: they don't do that in FL or TX. I do note that in SC the sales tax is minimal. I wonder how they work that out and catch people with two addresses. Learned something new today. Property taxes for a boat... lol What's next property tax for living? Uhmm sir we see you don't own a house but we calculate that your body parts are worth 200k and we want you to pay for living in your body.

 

[kaz]

There's no reason to tax property at all. How can you claim you own a piece of property if you have to pay ransom to the state government every year?

Don't like it you can live on a boat or an RV.

Um...they charge property taxes for those too...

Um... no they don't.

They are unless you live in a property tax free state, in which case your statement would be a truism

Do you have a link for property tax rates of boats and RVs that I can look at? NVM I found one... it's in CALIFORNIA and SC. ROFL I've never lived there but yeah OMFG they have property taxes for boats in California. ROFL Note: they don't do that in FL or TX. I do note that in SC the sales tax is minimal. I wonder how they work that out and catch people with two addresses. Learned something new today. Property taxes for a boat... lol What's next property tax for living? Uhmm sir we see you don't own a house but we calculate that your body parts are worth 200k and we want you to pay for living in your body.

I don't have a link, I just know they tax not just land but cars and other types of vehicles land or sea in states with property taxes. You only own the shirt on your back, the rest is owned by government and you're a renter.

As far as catching people, remember you have to register it somehow

 

[bripat9643]

Don't like it you can live on a boat or an RV.

Um...they charge property taxes for those too...

Um... no they don't.

They are unless you live in a property tax free state, in which case your statement would be a truism

Do you have a link for property tax rates of boats and RVs that I can look at? NVM I found one... it's in CALIFORNIA and SC. ROFL I've never lived there but yeah OMFG they have property taxes for boats in California. ROFL Note: they don't do that in FL or TX. I do note that in SC the sales tax is minimal. I wonder how they work that out and catch people with two addresses. Learned something new today. Property taxes for a boat... lol What's next property tax for living? Uhmm sir we see you don't own a house but we calculate that your body parts are worth 200k and we want you to pay for living in your body.

I don't have a link, I just know they tax not just land but cars and other types of vehicles land or sea in states with property taxes. You only own the shirt on your back, the rest is owned by government and you're a renter.

As far as catching people, remember you have to register it somehow

Holding you up for ransom is pretty much the modus operandi of the Democrat Party. They are indistinguishable from highway men.

 

[kaz]

Um...they charge property taxes for those too...

Um... no they don't.

They are unless you live in a property tax free state, in which case your statement would be a truism

Do you have a link for property tax rates of boats and RVs that I can look at? NVM I found one... it's in CALIFORNIA and SC. ROFL I've never lived there but yeah OMFG they have property taxes for boats in California. ROFL Note: they don't do that in FL or TX. I do note that in SC the sales tax is minimal. I wonder how they work that out and catch people with two addresses. Learned something new today. Property taxes for a boat... lol What's next property tax for living? Uhmm sir we see you don't own a house but we calculate that your body parts are worth 200k and we want you to pay for living in your body.

I don't have a link, I just know they tax not just land but cars and other types of vehicles land or sea in states with property taxes. You only own the shirt on your back, the rest is owned by government and you're a renter.

As far as catching people, remember you have to register it somehow

Holding you up for ransom is pretty much the modus operandi of the Democrat Party. They are indistinguishable from highway men.

Democrats are better armed

 

[Faun]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

Now what kaz...?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

... now you're legally obligated to subsidize gay mating in all 50 states ... (or be the wife in your family).

 

[kaz]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

Now what kaz...?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

... now you're legally obligated to subsidize gay mating in all 50 states ... (or be the wife in your family).

My prediction came true. The Supreme court ruled and my position didn't change, it made no difference to me. You and Seawytch both went down in complete flames on that one

 

[Seawytch]

You can post where I said anything about your reaction?

 

[RKMBrown]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

Now what kaz...?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

... now you're legally obligated to subsidize gay mating in all 50 states ... (or be the wife in your family).

My prediction came true. The Supreme court ruled and my position didn't change, it made no difference to me. You and Seawytch both went down in complete flames on that one

And gay people are getting married all over the place... god bless them.

 

[kaz]

You can post where I said anything about your reaction?

You did it repeatedly, I'm not interested in a no, duh, you don't remember that now debate. Man up

 

[Seawytch]

You can post where I said anything about your reaction?

You did it repeatedly, I'm not interested in a no, duh, you don't remember that now debate. Man up

Except I never predicted how you would respond to the ruling. The conversations you have with me in your head aren't real.

 

[Faun]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

Now what kaz...?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

... now you're legally obligated to subsidize gay mating in all 50 states ... (or be the wife in your family).

My prediction came true. The Supreme court ruled and my position didn't change, it made no difference to me. You and Seawytch both went down in complete flames on that one

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of what we predicted, leaving you, someone who's against government ordained marriage, stuck with "subsidizing gay mating," which you are also against -- and you're so delusional, you think I was the one to go down in flames.

 

[Faun]

You can post where I said anything about your reaction?

You did it repeatedly, I'm not interested in a no, duh, you don't remember that now debate. Man up

Except I never predicted how you would respond to the ruling. The conversations you have with me in your head aren't real.

Better known as .... kazzing.

 

[kaz]

You can post where I said anything about your reaction?

You did it repeatedly, I'm not interested in a no, duh, you don't remember that now debate. Man up

Except I never predicted how you would respond to the ruling. The conversations you have with me in your head aren't real.

No, you repeatedly informed me I was going to be upset when the Supreme Court ruled what they did. I responded repeatedly I thought they would rule this way and you are wrong, it wouldn't affect my view at all.

I did say it wasn't the slam dunk you thought it was, but it would probably go this way. Roberts puts his career above his country and Kennedy is an attention whore who loves when the liberal media adores him and you only needed one of the two, you got it. I thought you probably would.

 

[kaz]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

Now what kaz...?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

... now you're legally obligated to subsidize gay mating in all 50 states ... (or be the wife in your family).

My prediction came true. The Supreme court ruled and my position didn't change, it made no difference to me. You and Seawytch both went down in complete flames on that one

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of what we predicted, leaving you, someone who's against government ordained marriage, stuck with "subsidizing gay mating," which you are also against -- and you're so delusional, you think I was the one to go down in flames.

I subsidize a lot more straight marriages than gay ones. You have zero sense of perspective. That was never the point of the thread

 

[kaz]

You can post where I said anything about your reaction?

You did it repeatedly, I'm not interested in a no, duh, you don't remember that now debate. Man up

Except I never predicted how you would respond to the ruling. The conversations you have with me in your head aren't real.

Better known as .... kazzing.

Thank you, and you are correct. I am kazzing, I don't blindly accept leftist ideology like you do, gay boy. I will never stop kazzing

 

[Seawytch]

You can post where I said anything about your reaction?

You did it repeatedly, I'm not interested in a no, duh, you don't remember that now debate. Man up

Except I never predicted how you would respond to the ruling. The conversations you have with me in your head aren't real.

No, you repeatedly informed me I was going to be upset when the Supreme Court ruled what they did. I responded repeatedly I thought they would rule this way and you are wrong, it wouldn't affect my view at all.

I did say it wasn't the slam dunk you thought it was, but it would probably go this way. Roberts puts his career above his country and Kennedy is an attention whore who loves when the liberal media adores him and you only needed one of the two, you got it. I thought you probably would.

If this was something I did "repeatedly", then you should be able to link to at least one instance of it. You haven't because you can't. You're mistaken.

 

[kaz]

You can post where I said anything about your reaction?

You did it repeatedly, I'm not interested in a no, duh, you don't remember that now debate. Man up

Except I never predicted how you would respond to the ruling. The conversations you have with me in your head aren't real.

No, you repeatedly informed me I was going to be upset when the Supreme Court ruled what they did. I responded repeatedly I thought they would rule this way and you are wrong, it wouldn't affect my view at all.

I did say it wasn't the slam dunk you thought it was, but it would probably go this way. Roberts puts his career above his country and Kennedy is an attention whore who loves when the liberal media adores him and you only needed one of the two, you got it. I thought you probably would.

If this was something I did "repeatedly", then you should be able to link to at least one instance of it. You haven't because you can't. You're mistaken.

That's a subtle search and when I show you you'll ignore it or say yeah, whatever.

So if I can show you that you are full of shit and you did tell me I would be upset about the supreme court ruling, what are you going to do? Will you ban yourself for the rest of July?

 

[Seawytch]

You can post where I said anything about your reaction?

You did it repeatedly, I'm not interested in a no, duh, you don't remember that now debate. Man up

Except I never predicted how you would respond to the ruling. The conversations you have with me in your head aren't real.

No, you repeatedly informed me I was going to be upset when the Supreme Court ruled what they did. I responded repeatedly I thought they would rule this way and you are wrong, it wouldn't affect my view at all.

I did say it wasn't the slam dunk you thought it was, but it would probably go this way. Roberts puts his career above his country and Kennedy is an attention whore who loves when the liberal media adores him and you only needed one of the two, you got it. I thought you probably would.

If this was something I did "repeatedly", then you should be able to link to at least one instance of it. You haven't because you can't. You're mistaken.

That's a subtle search and when I show you you'll ignore it or say yeah, whatever.

So if I can show you that you are full of shit and you did tell me I would be upset about the supreme court ruling, what are you going to do? Will you ban yourself for the rest of July?

Please, proceed Governor. Search away.

Find the post where I claimed you'd be upset over the SSM ruling.

The rest of July? No. I'll give you a heartfelt apology and wish you a happy 4th.

 

[kaz]

You did it repeatedly, I'm not interested in a no, duh, you don't remember that now debate. Man up

Except I never predicted how you would respond to the ruling. The conversations you have with me in your head aren't real.

No, you repeatedly informed me I was going to be upset when the Supreme Court ruled what they did. I responded repeatedly I thought they would rule this way and you are wrong, it wouldn't affect my view at all.

I did say it wasn't the slam dunk you thought it was, but it would probably go this way. Roberts puts his career above his country and Kennedy is an attention whore who loves when the liberal media adores him and you only needed one of the two, you got it. I thought you probably would.

If this was something I did "repeatedly", then you should be able to link to at least one instance of it. You haven't because you can't. You're mistaken.

That's a subtle search and when I show you you'll ignore it or say yeah, whatever.

So if I can show you that you are full of shit and you did tell me I would be upset about the supreme court ruling, what are you going to do? Will you ban yourself for the rest of July?

Please, proceed Governor. Search away.

Find the post where I claimed you'd be upset over the SSM ruling.

The rest of July? No. I'll give you a heartfelt apology and wish you a happy 4th.

It was a confidence test. So now your challenge is for me to find a very difficult search for a search function in thousands of posts for you to say oops, my bad. I'll pass on that, and you just admitted you aren't confident you didn't even say it. Set and match, my dear. You may now deflect away