France's top court:UNCONSTITUTIONAL to levy 75% tax on rich

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you.

bripat the Doosh does not believe the government can shut down the net anytime it wishes.

Tell us why you believe that.

The government can do pretty much whatever it likes since it gets to use guns to impose its demands.

 

[NoNukes]

If you say so for yourself, OK. Give the same grace tho those who believe differently.

You have devolved from the spiritless connection that behinds all life together.

Yes, in that sense, you have lost some of your humanity.

My friend, you are lost. I have studied and practiced many religions and philosophies, but cheerfulness keeps breaking through. I am more spiritual without religion than with it. I meditate twice a day and I am very in tune to the rhythm of the universe.

I do. Those who are TRULY religious have my respect. I have not met many TRUE Christians in my life, but when I do meet one, I am in the presence if a beautiful person.

 

[JoeB131]

Fact1: Romney won by 7 point margin among people living in households that make $50,000 or more

Fact2: Obama won by 28 point margin among people living in households that make less than $30,000

yeah, so essentially, what you proved that after 30 years of making war on the working class, the GOP has lost them badly.

Here's the hint. the guy make 50K has just as many votes as the guy making 28K.

So the guy making $50K isn't "working class?"

BTW, blow job, Only commies talk about classes all the time.

I was only responding to EuroTrash's comment that somehow Obama's victory was less valid because lower income people's votes put him over the top.

Sorry you are too full on anger and paranoia to comprehend that...

 

[JoeB131]

You do realize that when the top rate was 90% that the bottom rate was over 20% don't you?

So if you're willing to double the bottom tax bracket then we can get back to the good old days.

When the bottom rate was 20%, you didn't have sales taxes, the Social Security tax was only 1% instead of 6, there was no medicare tax.

Again, you guys keep trying to pretend the income tax is the only tax that exists when it isn't.

The bottom rate was 20% in 1963, the top rate was 90%, the FICA was 3.125%, and the State sales tax was started in the State of Illinois in 1933. You did get one right since Medicare was not collected until 1966.

None of those taxes were as high on working people as they are now, dipshit. I could also throw in gasoline taxes, property taxes, cigarette taxes, etc.

Here's a concept. Let's get rid of all those other taxes or reduce them to 1950's levels, then you can have your other tax rates set where they were... I'm reasonably sure that would work out pretty well for working folks... and we still get the added benefit of screwing the rich.

 

[JoeB131]

[

This myth has been debunked so many times, it is no longer funny.. please research what was considered income, what was deductible, what loopholes were there, etc...

And please explain how higher taxation and confiscation leads to greater prosperity...

And you might as well go put a bullet thru your atheist head now... you have nothing to believe in, look forward to, or actually to contribute considering you think others should be paying your way and government should be taking and controlling most everything

Wow, Dave, seems like you are the guy who needs to put a bullet in your head, being that full of hate and anger.

But of course, Keynesian economics lead to greater prosperity.

When a rich douchebag keeps his money, he'll spend it on some bullshit like a yacht or a Dressage pony that really doesn't benefit anyone.

The government will spend it on roads or schools or infrastructure that benefits everyone and even helps business. Not to mention they drive up working class salaries.

Again, the Europeans and Japanese have figured this out... we Americans are just kind of dopey.

 

[Too Tall]

When the bottom rate was 20%, you didn't have sales taxes, the Social Security tax was only 1% instead of 6, there was no medicare tax.

Again, you guys keep trying to pretend the income tax is the only tax that exists when it isn't.

The bottom rate was 20% in 1963, the top rate was 90%, the FICA was 3.125%, and the State sales tax was started in the State of Illinois in 1933. You did get one right since Medicare was not collected until 1966.

None of those taxes were as high on working people as they are now, dipshit. I could also throw in gasoline taxes, property taxes, cigarette taxes, etc.

Here's a concept. Let's get rid of all those other taxes or reduce them to 1950's levels, then you can have your other tax rates set where they were... I'm reasonably sure that would work out pretty well for working folks... and we still get the added benefit of screwing the rich.

Those people that were paying 20% Federal Income Tax, 3.125% FICA and a state sales tax in 1963 were certainly working people and at present the Federal tax rate is 10% and many of them get an EITC check that more than reimburses them for the payroll taxes that they do pay.

Gasoline taxes are levied to build and maintain the roads and highways, property taxes pay for state government services and the school systems, and since I don't smoke I don't give a ratsass about cigarette taxes.

You can wish to return to 1950 but I prefer to live in the present and look to the future.

 

[JoeB131]

The bottom rate was 20% in 1963, the top rate was 90%, the FICA was 3.125%, and the State sales tax was started in the State of Illinois in 1933. You did get one right since Medicare was not collected until 1966.

None of those taxes were as high on working people as they are now, dipshit. I could also throw in gasoline taxes, property taxes, cigarette taxes, etc.

Here's a concept. Let's get rid of all those other taxes or reduce them to 1950's levels, then you can have your other tax rates set where they were... I'm reasonably sure that would work out pretty well for working folks... and we still get the added benefit of screwing the rich.

Those people that were paying 20% Federal Income Tax, 3.125% FICA and a state sales tax in 1963 were certainly working people and at present the Federal tax rate is 10% and many of them get an EITC check that more than reimburses them for the payroll taxes that they do pay.

Gasoline taxes are levied to build and maintain the roads and highways, property taxes pay for state government services and the school systems, and since I don't smoke I don't give a ratsass about cigarette taxes.

You can wish to return to 1950 but I prefer to live in the present and look to the future.

I prefer to do it right, which we aren't doing now.

The future you want is Cuba, keep letting the rich abuse the rest of us until they get fed up with it and throw them off onto little boats...

 

[Too Tall]

None of those taxes were as high on working people as they are now, dipshit. I could also throw in gasoline taxes, property taxes, cigarette taxes, etc.

Here's a concept. Let's get rid of all those other taxes or reduce them to 1950's levels, then you can have your other tax rates set where they were... I'm reasonably sure that would work out pretty well for working folks... and we still get the added benefit of screwing the rich.

Those people that were paying 20% Federal Income Tax, 3.125% FICA and a state sales tax in 1963 were certainly working people and at present the Federal tax rate is 10% and many of them get an EITC check that more than reimburses them for the payroll taxes that they do pay.

Gasoline taxes are levied to build and maintain the roads and highways, property taxes pay for state government services and the school systems, and since I don't smoke I don't give a ratsass about cigarette taxes.

You can wish to return to 1950 but I prefer to live in the present and look to the future.

I prefer to do it right, which we aren't doing now.

The future you want is Cuba, keep letting the rich abuse the rest of us until they get fed up with it and throw them off onto little boats...

Many of the people on those boats were the 'rich' people.

The Cubans were leaving Cuba because Castro expropriated private property with little or no compensation, nationalized public utilities, and tightened controls on the private sector.

All radio and television stations were in state control. Moderate teachers and professors were purged. In any year, about 20,000 dissenters were imprisoned. Some homosexuals, religious practitioners, and others were sent to labor camps where they were subject to political "re-education". The U.S. State Department estimates that 3,200 people were executed from 1959 to 1962. Other estimates for the total number political executions range from 4,000 to 33,000.

Does any of this sound familiar to what is happening under the Obama administration?

 

[bripat9643]

Thank you.

bripat the Doosh does not believe the government can shut down the net anytime it wishes.

Tell us why you believe that.

The government can do pretty much whatever it likes since it gets to use guns to impose its demands.

what do you imagine that proves, moron?

 

[JoeB131]

I prefer to do it right, which we aren't doing now.

The future you want is Cuba, keep letting the rich abuse the rest of us until they get fed up with it and throw them off onto little boats...

Many of the people on those boats were the 'rich' people.

The Cubans were leaving Cuba because Castro expropriated private property with little or no compensation, nationalized public utilities, and tightened controls on the private sector.

All radio and television stations were in state control. Moderate teachers and professors were purged. In any year, about 20,000 dissenters were imprisoned. Some homosexuals, religious practitioners, and others were sent to labor camps where they were subject to political "re-education". The U.S. State Department estimates that 3,200 people were executed from 1959 to 1962. Other estimates for the total number political executions range from 4,000 to 33,000.

Does any of this sound familiar to what is happening under the Obama administration?

I don't know, is Obama executing any rich people? If he is, can I help? (This is a joke, please don't go into hysterics!)

Seriously, though, you have to ask why the Cuban people- not Castro - went along with such a radical change in their society.

Because they got fed up with a system where 90% of the land was owned by foreigners, where the wealthy lived in oppulance while they lived in squalor... As JFK noted..




"I believe that there is no country in the world including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my country’s policies during the Batista regime. I approved the proclamation which Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will even go further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear."

— U.S. President John F. Kennedy, interview with Jean Daniel, 24 October 1963[11]

 

[Skull Pilot]

No one absofuckinglutely no one has the right to take 3/4 of someone's else's money

It's funny how all you ******* sheep are all for stealing from others while not paying your own way.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't know, is Obama executing any rich people? If he is, can I help? (This is a joke, please don't go into hysterics!)

Seriously, though, you have to ask why the Cuban people- not Castro - went along with such a radical change in their society.

Because they got fed up with a system where 90% of the land was owned by foreigners, where the wealthy lived in oppulance while they lived in squalor... As JFK noted..

They went along with it? I never realized the Cuban people voted Castro into power.

The Cuban people were better off than the people of any other country in Latin America. Their standard of living was rapidly approaching ours. Cubans underwent a drastic reduction in their standard of living when Castro came to power. Only ******* commies claim that Castro was an improvement over Batista.

 

[JoeB131]

No one absofuckinglutely no one has the right to take 3/4 of someone's else's money

It's funny how all you ******* sheep are all for stealing from others while not paying your own way.

Actually, society has the "right" to take everything you have, including your life.

because there are no "rights", guys. There are only privilages that society lets us have.

And fool who thinks he has "rights", needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942" to see how fast "rights" can vanish when society wants them to.

One segment of society manipulates an unfair wealth distribution, the rest of society is going to force a redistribution to keep functioning. This is just ebb and flow.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No one absofuckinglutely no one has the right to take 3/4 of someone's else's money

It's funny how all you ******* sheep are all for stealing from others while not paying your own way.

Actually, society has the "right" to take everything you have, including your life.

because there are no "rights", guys. There are only privilages that society lets us have.

And fool who thinks he has "rights", needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942" to see how fast "rights" can vanish when society wants them to.

One segment of society manipulates an unfair wealth distribution, the rest of society is going to force a redistribution to keep functioning. This is just ebb and flow.

Typical left winger sheep group thinker that you are no wonder you want to justify the removal of other's rights so you can benefit.

It's disgusting.

 

[JoeB131]

They went along with it? I never realized the Cuban people voted Castro into power.

The Cuban people were better off than the people of any other country in Latin America. Their standard of living was rapidly approaching ours. Cubans underwent a drastic reduction in their standard of living when Castro came to power. Only ******* commies claim that Castro was an improvement over Batista.

I know this is a hard concept for you to get, but Castro is a national hero to the Cuban people.

And he will be long after they decide Communism wasn't such a hot idea.

It wasn't about economic systems, it was about how he liberated their people from colonial domination by the US.

Now despite the fact we've been punishing Cuba economically for 50 years because of this, the fact is, Cubans ARE better off than they were under Batista. Which is why 50 years of scheming from South Florida hasn't resulted in getting rid of him.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually, society has the "right" to take everything you have, including your life.

Society has no rights whatsoever, you ******* commie. The very notion of collective rights is any oxymoron.

because there are no "rights", guys. There are only privilages that society lets us have.

That's the ultimate expression of a fascist, boot licking government toady.

And fool who thinks he has "rights", needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942" to see how fast "rights" can vanish when society wants them to.

Rights can be violated. They don't vanish. All you have proved is that you don't know what a right is.

One segment of society manipulates an unfair wealth distribution, the rest of society is going to force a redistribution to keep functioning. This is just ebb and flow.

You have no right to any "wealth distribution." Taking wealth from the people who earned it doesn't keep society functioning. It does the opposite.

You've enunciated the moral code of a thug.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The lies you tell.

Much of the eastern half of the island did not have electricity.

Medical care for the agricultural workers was almost non-existent.

Read any objective history of Cuba.

You lie as easily as you breathe.

Many of the people on those boats were the 'rich' people.

The Cubans were leaving Cuba because Castro expropriated private property with little or no compensation, nationalized public utilities, and tightened controls on the private sector.



Does any of this sound familiar to what is happening under the Obama administration?

I don't know, is Obama executing any rich people? If he is, can I help? (This is a joke, please don't go into hysterics!)

Seriously, though, you have to ask why the Cuban people- not Castro - went along with such a radical change in their society.

Because they got fed up with a system where 90% of the land was owned by foreigners, where the wealthy lived in oppulance while they lived in squalor... As JFK noted..

They went along with it? I never realized the Cuban people voted Castro into power.

The Cuban people were better off than the people of any other country in Latin America. Their standard of living was rapidly approaching ours. Cubans underwent a drastic reduction in their standard of living when Castro came to power. Only ******* commies claim that Castro was an improvement over Batista.

 

[JoeB131]

No one absofuckinglutely no one has the right to take 3/4 of someone's else's money

It's funny how all you ******* sheep are all for stealing from others while not paying your own way.

Actually, society has the "right" to take everything you have, including your life.

because there are no "rights", guys. There are only privilages that society lets us have.

And fool who thinks he has "rights", needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942" to see how fast "rights" can vanish when society wants them to.

One segment of society manipulates an unfair wealth distribution, the rest of society is going to force a redistribution to keep functioning. This is just ebb and flow.

Typical left winger sheep group thinker that you are no wonder you want to justify the removal of other's rights so you can benefit.

It's disgusting.

Yes, I'm sure you consider taking away a rich person's dressage pony so a working person who worked all of her life doesn't have to eat dog food in her golden years to be disgusting. Especially after the rich person looted her pension fund and caused a stock market crash that emptied out her savings.

Most sane, humane people don't.

You created this mess. You can't favor the rich over the working man and then be surprised when working folks turn to government for a redress...

You should kind of expect it.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, society has the "right" to take everything you have, including your life.

Society has no rights whatsoever, you ******* commie. The very notion of collective rights is any oxymoron.

because there are no "rights", guys. There are only privilages that society lets us have.

That's the ultimate expression of a fascist, boot licking government toady.

And fool who thinks he has "rights", needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942" to see how fast "rights" can vanish when society wants them to.

Rights can be violated. They don't vanish. All you have proved is that you don't know what a right is.

One segment of society manipulates an unfair wealth distribution, the rest of society is going to force a redistribution to keep functioning. This is just ebb and flow.

You have no right to any "wealth distribution." Taking wealth from the people who earned it doesn't keep society functioning. It does the opposite.

You've enunciated the moral code of a thug.

There are no rights. Please physically show me a "right".

There are privilages that society decides the rest of us have. And most of them are pretty sensible.

Fact is, society decides to redistrubute wealth, wealth will be redistributed. You might be able to hop onto a boat with the silver... I guess.

 

[DiamondDave]

And the progressive supports tyranny of the masses and believes there are no rights... how shocking