Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No. I did not. I rejected a totalitarian state where the government controls it's citizens, not one that serves it's citizens best interests by letting them live their lives best as they see fit because too many of the citizenry cannot abide others choosing something different from them.Excuse me? But when does need give you the right to someone else's labor or wealth?What's unfair is to tax the money people need for the basic necessities of life. The argument is then what should reasonably qualify as necessities.
That is called a justification of slavery.
So, massah... who do you wish to enslave to your or someone else's 'need' today?
Doan whip me none, massah! I's be a good slave fo you!
You just rejected the legitimacy of a democratic constitutional government. So now tell me,
what government do you replace it with, and how do you get to that government?
Or changing behaviour of businesses.Yes, leaving the bottom 47% EARNING $1, $10 or hundreds of dollars by 'doing their taxes'. Meanwhile the top 10% of all taxpayers pay about 60% of the tab.
How the fuck is that fair?
It may not be 'fair' that someone with kids might pay 1/4 of the income tax I pay, all else being equal,
but it's futile to argue against that and foolish to think it will ever change.
The only unfair part of that is that the GOVT can USE tax policy to influence the number of kids people have. Either by expanding or cutting those subsidies..
Hence the law was supposed to prevent the tyranny of the mob at the expense of the minority or the corruption of the minority oppressing the rich.oh yes, wise sahib! The tax code is written in stone, is it not? It is futile to argue against something that never can change!.It may not be 'fair' that someone with kids might pay 1/4 of the income tax I pay, all else being equal,
but it's futile to argue against that and foolish to think it will ever change.
Did you crack your skull on the shallow end again?
Life ain't fair. Anyone who tells you otherwise, is selling something.
You're a fool if you think the voting bloc represented by Americans with children will ever vote away their preferential tax treatment in numbers sufficient to change that circumstance.
Then it is fatally flawed. All Americans must pay or none should. That is equality you so want.Oh, btw, sort of on the subject, Rick Perry is coming out with a flat tax plan modeled after creepy Steve Forbe's timeworn flat tax,
and guess what?
...if it does follow that model it will include a big first income/low income exemption that will result in millions of American households STILL paying no federal income taxes.
Realize that the classes are not permanent, and class mobility invalidates the need for class warfare and envy.I will toss out the same challenge I give to Carbie he runs from every time:The only unfair part of that is that the GOVT can USE tax policy to influence the number of kids people have. Either by expanding or cutting those subsidies..
I am in favor of ending ALL subsidies and tax breaks to ALL citizens and corporations and everyone pays their fair share in a single flat tax for all.
What could be more fair than that?
You willing to sign on to that, or is social engineering still more important than fairness and equality under the law.
Still chanting Social Justice instead of Equal Justice?
The only diff between Social Justice and Equal Justice is that the types that support the former have to PERPETUATE a class difference to stay in biz..
Now to be fair -- ERADICATING class diffs is a fools errand. But working to REDUCE them sure isn't.... So MY question to NYCarbo would be -- Aren't we ALL working to minimize class diffs? And I don't mean just sheer redistribution schemes.. Biggest impact on class diffs is education.. Want to make the case that the NYCarbo team does a better job?
And I have to ask what is next for the left? Getting rid of the Electoral College? How Representatives are apportioned? Why just two Senators? How about whatever the POTUS decides? His way or the highway? And How about that Judicial? Everything they decide is it...and neither one of the other two branches can challange?Hence the law was supposed to prevent the tyranny of the mob at the expense of the minority or the corruption of the minority oppressing the rich.oh yes, wise sahib! The tax code is written in stone, is it not? It is futile to argue against something that never can change!.
Did you crack your skull on the shallow end again?
Life ain't fair. Anyone who tells you otherwise, is selling something.
You're a fool if you think the voting bloc represented by Americans with children will ever vote away their preferential tax treatment in numbers sufficient to change that circumstance.
THAT is the purpose of the much despised separation of powers by the left. They want an all powerful benign benevolant 'administrator' that takes care of all their needs from cradle to grave at the discretion of that individual. They also hope they get to BE that individual, lest they suffer under him.
The economy crshing in part because of the GOP Congress's dereliction of duty from 1994 to 2006, then the dems in 2007 to 2010: we are all at fault.
Sure
gov't spending is the problem
Of course Bush did have 911, two wars and overall avg did better than Papa Obama so far
If fact ....
CBO: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act
- According to CBO numbers in its Budget and Economic Outlook published this month, the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom was $709 billion for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations.
- The projected cost of the stimulus, which passed in February 2009, and is expected to have a shelf life of two years, was $862 billion.
Papa Obama leftist policies just don't work
Only a fool would believe that we are only one tax on the rich or one spending cut from some program from fixing our problems
I certainly agree BHO has not done as well as he should have, but he was having to take care of the Congressional mess from 1994 to 2008. Left and Right Wing progressivist programs have shattered the economy along with common American greed, from the poorest to the richest.
And I have to ask what is next for the left? Getting rid of the Electoral College?
How Representatives are apportioned? Why just two Senators?
How about whatever the POTUS decides? His way or the highway?
And How about that Judicial? Everything they decide is it...and neither one of the other two branches can challange?
Despotism...the word of the day and what the left seems to want...hand in hand with Mob Rule and Democracy...sure why not?
I will toss out the same challenge I give to Carbie he runs from every time:
I am in favor of ending ALL subsidies and tax breaks to ALL citizens and corporations and everyone pays their fair share in a single flat tax for all.
What could be more fair than that?
You willing to sign on to that, or is social engineering still more important than fairness and equality under the law.
Still chanting Social Justice instead of Equal Justice?
Your 'plan' is based on the faulty premise that income being taxed the same is 'fair'.
Do you want to end all religious exemptions? All charitable deductions?
Oh, btw I'll tell you what would actually be more 'fair' than what you propose, and what proves that not even your plan is 'fair' despite your repeatedly claims.
A set dollar amount tax for every citizen, regardless of income.
If we need 2 trillion dollars to pay for the government for a year, then we divide 2 trillion by the number of adults in the country and whatever that number is, that is your FAIR share. That means that if that number comes to 10,000 dollars, then everyone from you to me to Bill Gates to Warren Buffett owes 10,000 dollars. Or whatever the number is.
Yep. End them all. You able to stomach that? End the government 'charitable' programs and let people keep their own money. Charity cannot come from force anyway. This way charities people support get funded, while wastes wither on the vine and die.
If we need 2 trillion dollars to pay for the government for a year, then we divide 2 trillion by the number of adults in the country and whatever that number is, that is your FAIR share.
Except if you ended all the social spending as is constitutionally correct, the cost of government would be about 400 billion or less. So, no need for 2 trillion, therefore the burden on the citizenry shrinks.
Oh, btw I'll tell you what would actually be more 'fair' than what you propose, and what proves that not even your plan is 'fair' despite your repeatedly claims.
A set dollar amount tax for every citizen, regardless of income.
You're right. That IS the most fair. It's a regressive tax though. Is that fair? Yes, when you look at the population at large. So to compromise on fairness and equality you must look at a flat rate... like 10% for everyone. It's the least unequal or unfair, since the concept of equality and fairness are mutually exclusive.
Your 'plan' is based on the faulty premise that income being taxed the same is 'fair'.
Do you want to end all religious exemptions? All charitable deductions?
Oh, btw I'll tell you what would actually be more 'fair' than what you propose, and what proves that not even your plan is 'fair' despite your repeatedly claims.
A set dollar amount tax for every citizen, regardless of income.
If we need 2 trillion dollars to pay for the government for a year, then we divide 2 trillion by the number of adults in the country and whatever that number is, that is your FAIR share. That means that if that number comes to 10,000 dollars, then everyone from you to me to Bill Gates to Warren Buffett owes 10,000 dollars. Or whatever the number is.
Yep. End them all. You able to stomach that? End the government 'charitable' programs and let people keep their own money. Charity cannot come from force anyway. This way charities people support get funded, while wastes wither on the vine and die.
Except if you ended all the social spending as is constitutionally correct, the cost of government would be about 400 billion or less. So, no need for 2 trillion, therefore the burden on the citizenry shrinks.
Oh, btw I'll tell you what would actually be more 'fair' than what you propose, and what proves that not even your plan is 'fair' despite your repeatedly claims.
A set dollar amount tax for every citizen, regardless of income.
You're right. That IS the most fair. It's a regressive tax though. Is that fair? Yes, when you look at the population at large. So to compromise on fairness and equality you must look at a flat rate... like 10% for everyone. It's the least unequal or unfair, since the concept of equality and fairness are mutually exclusive.
What is constitutionally correct is not determined by crackpots on the internet.
Your 'plan' is based on the faulty premise that income being taxed the same is 'fair'.
Do you want to end all religious exemptions? All charitable deductions?
Oh, btw I'll tell you what would actually be more 'fair' than what you propose, and what proves that not even your plan is 'fair' despite your repeatedly claims.
A set dollar amount tax for every citizen, regardless of income.
If we need 2 trillion dollars to pay for the government for a year, then we divide 2 trillion by the number of adults in the country and whatever that number is, that is your FAIR share. That means that if that number comes to 10,000 dollars, then everyone from you to me to Bill Gates to Warren Buffett owes 10,000 dollars. Or whatever the number is.
Yep. End them all. You able to stomach that? End the government 'charitable' programs and let people keep their own money. Charity cannot come from force anyway. This way charities people support get funded, while wastes wither on the vine and die.
Except if you ended all the social spending as is constitutionally correct, the cost of government would be about 400 billion or less. So, no need for 2 trillion, therefore the burden on the citizenry shrinks.
Oh, btw I'll tell you what would actually be more 'fair' than what you propose, and what proves that not even your plan is 'fair' despite your repeatedly claims.
A set dollar amount tax for every citizen, regardless of income.
You're right. That IS the most fair. It's a regressive tax though. Is that fair? Yes, when you look at the population at large. So to compromise on fairness and equality you must look at a flat rate... like 10% for everyone. It's the least unequal or unfair, since the concept of equality and fairness are mutually exclusive.
What is constitutionally correct is not determined by crackpots on the internet.
Yep. End them all. You able to stomach that? End the government 'charitable' programs and let people keep their own money. Charity cannot come from force anyway. This way charities people support get funded, while wastes wither on the vine and die.
Except if you ended all the social spending as is constitutionally correct, the cost of government would be about 400 billion or less. So, no need for 2 trillion, therefore the burden on the citizenry shrinks.
You're right. That IS the most fair. It's a regressive tax though. Is that fair? Yes, when you look at the population at large. So to compromise on fairness and equality you must look at a flat rate... like 10% for everyone. It's the least unequal or unfair, since the concept of equality and fairness are mutually exclusive.
What is constitutionally correct is not determined by crackpots on the internet.
Thank you for self identifying as a crackpot. I just take the founding fathers as their word.
No. I did not. I rejected a totalitarian state where the government controls it's citizens, not one that serves it's citizens best interests by letting them live their lives best as they see fit because too many of the citizenry cannot abide others choosing something different from them.
You preach control and slavery when you preach that need has supremacy over individual freedom, property ownership and choice.
No. I did not. I rejected a totalitarian state where the government controls it's citizens, not one that serves it's citizens best interests by letting them live their lives best as they see fit because too many of the citizenry cannot abide others choosing something different from them.
You preach control and slavery when you preach that need has supremacy over individual freedom, property ownership and choice.
How would a government actually function that wasn't based on the principle that the majority should rule?
Specifically and coherently please.
Sure
gov't spending is the problem
Of course Bush did have 911, two wars and overall avg did better than Papa Obama so far
If fact ....
CBO: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act
- According to CBO numbers in its Budget and Economic Outlook published this month, the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom was $709 billion for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations.
- The projected cost of the stimulus, which passed in February 2009, and is expected to have a shelf life of two years, was $862 billion.
Papa Obama leftist policies just don't work
Only a fool would believe that we are only one tax on the rich or one spending cut from some program from fixing our problems
hooray for our side... while the misbegotten, stupid, unnecessary, counterproductive Iraq war has cost $709 Billion (to date)... it's a bargain compared to Obama's Stimulus Package... I feel so proud to be on the side that throws money down the toilet slightly less fast than the other side...
Valid source for the $709 billion?
The Iraq War is a bargain compared to the stimulus package?
How much were we told the Iraq War would cost before we went in?
What is the price tag of over 4,000 American lives?
What is the price tag of the tens of thousands of other causalities we will be caring for for the rest of their lives?
The Iraq war was a bargain compared to the stimulus lol.......give me a fucking break.
Sure
gov't spending is the problem
Of course Bush did have 911, two wars and overall avg did better than Papa Obama so far
If fact ....
CBO: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act
- According to CBO numbers in its Budget and Economic Outlook published this month, the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom was $709 billion for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations.
- The projected cost of the stimulus, which passed in February 2009, and is expected to have a shelf life of two years, was $862 billion.
Papa Obama leftist policies just don't work
Only a fool would believe that we are only one tax on the rich or one spending cut from some program from fixing our problems
I certainly agree BHO has not done as well as he should have, but he was having to take care of the Congressional mess from 1994 to 2008. Left and Right Wing progressivist programs have shattered the economy along with common American greed, from the poorest to the richest.
Papa Obama adding more progressive crap is not taking care of it
It just makes things worse
Please name the specific right wing and left wing "progressivist" programs, as you say...
What are they and who has more?
I certainly agree BHO has not done as well as he should have, but he was having to take care of the Congressional mess from 1994 to 2008. Left and Right Wing progressivist programs have shattered the economy along with common American greed, from the poorest to the richest.
Papa Obama adding more progressive crap is not taking care of it
It just makes things worse
Please name the specific right wing and left wing "progressivist" programs, as you say...
What are they and who has more?
You made the original assertions, so we will begin with you defining which "Papa Obama leftist policies just don't work" and your solutions, with suggestions for fixing them. I can then respond with more than assertions. Go for it, you started it.
NeoSilly posts assertions, does not back them up, and then makes silly of others.
Nothing new here.
