Increasing Taxes On The Wealthy And Corporations Is Extremely Popular And Has Been For Years

[Bob Blaylock]

You want a free ride (or "free stuff", as some so dearly love to put it).

That accusation from someone who wants a share of what I work very hard to earn, rather than having to deign to work to earn anything himself.

Go **** yourself.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Free stuff is never free.

A point that will never be acknowledged or conceded by those who demand, without doing anything to earn it, a share of what others work hard to earn.

 

[there4eyeM]

You want a free ride (or "free stuff", as some so dearly love to put it).

That accusation from someone who wants a share of what I work very hard to earn, rather than having to deign to work to earn anything himself.

Go **** yourself.

Learn to read and understand English, Ingrate.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Learn to read and understand English, Ingrate.

Again, I'm the one who is working hard to earn the wealth from which you are demanding a share that you are unwilling to do anything yourself to earn.

And I'm the “ingrate”? How much gratitude does a productive worker owe to a burdensome parasite?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's easy for corrupt politicians to manipulate the intellectually-lowest demographic of a nation into believing that “the wealthy” are to be robbed for the benefit of this demographic. They are always taken off-guard when they find themselves being the targets rather than the beneficiaries of this robbery, and yet they always fall for the same scam over and over again.

Of course, one is faced with doubting the intelligence of "the wealthy" when, just as surely as they always become the target of popular opinion, they have not anticipated this inevitability and taken measures to share the wealthy constructively.

Paying taxes, providing useful goods and services and hiring millions of workers sounds constructive to me. Perhaps you'd share your definition of sharing the wealth constructively?

Thanks, and sorry for the typo "sharing the wealthy". Obviously, it should be "sharing the wealth".
Sharing the wealth constructively is simple; in such a way as to avoid the masses rising up and taking what they wanted. History's repetitions of the scenario should alert anyone bright enough to read.

in such a way as to avoid the masses rising up and taking what they wanted.

Providing jobs, goods and services while paying most of the income taxes isn't enough?

History's repetitions of the scenario should alert anyone bright enough to read.

And when the masses aren't bright enough to do that?

 

[Camp]

American politics swing back a forth like a pendulum. The last administration gave significant tax benefits ro people in the highest tax brackets. The new administration wants to give benefits to the lower brackets in the form of good jobs and infrastructure.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The new administration wants to give benefits to the lower brackets in the form of jobs and infrastructure.

Are they going to make the individual tax cuts from 2018 permanent?

 

[Camp]

The new administration wants to give benefits to the lower brackets in the form of jobs and infrastructure.

Are they going to make the individual tax cuts from 2018 permanent?

Who knows? Congress will decide.

 

[daveman]

Popular to everyone but the MAGArats/ultra right wingers and GOP legislators

As we see here

How much of what other people earned is your fair share?

Since Lesh doesn't want to answer this question, I open it up to everybody.

How much of what other people earned is your fair share?

There are many questions in this one:
Whom are these "other people"?
What does "earned" mean?
What is "fair"?
Directed to everyone, aimed at no one.

"Other people": The rich.

"Earned": Performed actions in exchange for money.

"Fair": Ahhh, that one's more difficult. It usually means "I want what I didn't earn, so I'm going to insist it be taken away from the people who did earn it."

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

The best policy for the nation is always give as much money to the politicians as possible. It's the only way we can survive.

Yea...screw being a first world nation. Who needs that...

Yes! Politicians will get us there!

 

[daveman]

It's easy for corrupt politicians to manipulate the intellectually-lowest demographic of a nation into believing that “the wealthy” are to be robbed for the benefit of this demographic. They are always taken off-guard when they find themselves being the targets rather than the beneficiaries of this robbery, and yet they always fall for the same scam over and over again.

Of course, one is faced with doubting the intelligence of "the wealthy" when, just as surely as they always become the target of popular opinion, they have not anticipated this inevitability and taken measures to share the wealthy constructively.

In other words, they should give away what they have before it gets taken away from them.

 

[daveman]

It's easy for corrupt politicians to manipulate the intellectually-lowest demographic of a nation into believing that “the wealthy” are to be robbed for the benefit of this demographic. They are always taken off-guard when they find themselves being the targets rather than the beneficiaries of this robbery, and yet they always fall for the same scam over and over again.

Of course, one is faced with doubting the intelligence of "the wealthy" when, just as surely as they always become the target of popular opinion, they have not anticipated this inevitability and taken measures to share the wealthy constructively.

Paying taxes, providing useful goods and services and hiring millions of workers sounds constructive to me. Perhaps you'd share your definition of sharing the wealth constructively?

Thanks, and sorry for the typo "sharing the wealthy". Obviously, it should be "sharing the wealth".
Sharing the wealth constructively is simple; in such a way as to avoid the masses rising up and taking what they wanted. History's repetitions of the scenario should alert anyone bright enough to read.

in such a way as to avoid the masses rising up and taking what they wanted.

Providing jobs, goods and services while paying most of the income taxes isn't enough?

History's repetitions of the scenario should alert anyone bright enough to read.

And when the masses aren't bright enough to do that?

They vote Democrat.

 

[daveman]

It's easy for corrupt politicians to manipulate the intellectually-lowest demographic of a nation into believing that “the wealthy” are to be robbed for the benefit of this demographic. They are always taken off-guard when they find themselves being the targets rather than the beneficiaries of this robbery, and yet they always fall for the same scam over and over again.

Of course, one is faced with doubting the intelligence of "the wealthy" when, just as surely as they always become the target of popular opinion, they have not anticipated this inevitability and taken measures to share the wealthy constructively.

Paying taxes, providing useful goods and services and hiring millions of workers sounds constructive to me. Perhaps you'd share your definition of sharing the wealth constructively?

Thanks, and sorry for the typo "sharing the wealthy". Obviously, it should be "sharing the wealth".
Sharing the wealth constructively is simple; in such a way as to avoid the masses rising up and taking what they wanted. History's repetitions of the scenario should alert anyone bright enough to read.

You are not entitled to what you haven't earned.

Y'all ever notice how socialists never contribute anything to society?

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Tax corporation on salaries paid, as when taxing consumer goods; they buy labor and they pay tax on that. That is the only tax; none on profits to corps., none on employees' income. Consumers pay value added for services and goods through progressive taxes on these.

It's the employee who ends up paying that tax, even if you hide it from him by imposing it on the employer. What it ultimately means, no matter how you distribute the apparent taxes between the employee and the employer, is that the employee gets that much less of what it costs the employer to employ him.

If an employer pays me $2,000, and he has to pay $500 in taxes on my salary before I even see it, and I have to pay another $500 in taxes, after I receive it, then that means it cost the employer $2,500, and I only get to keep $1,500.

Alternatively, if the employer paid me $2,500, and paid no tax on my salary, but I paid $1000, then it'd still end up costing the employer the same, and I'd still keep the same, but it would be much more obvious to me how much of what I worked for is being stolen by government. Of course you don't want that, and neither do the greedy crooks ion government.

More to your liking would be for my employer to pay $1000 in taxes, and then pay me $1,500. Again, I still end up keeping the same, and the cost to my employer is the same, but now, the thieves in government have managed to hide from me the extent to which I am being robbed.

All three of these scenarios cost my employer the same $2,500 for me to get to keep $1,500; all that changes is how aware I am of how much of what I worked to earn is being taken by government; and, from the point of view of the kleptocracy, how easily they think they can get me to vote to support them.

Since just using a thumbs down is so such a wimpy expression of adolescence, suffice it to point out that your post reveals clearly that paying for what is provided by society has no place in your thinking. You want a free ride (or "free stuff", as some so dearly love to put it).
Otherwise, the indicated lack of understanding of the points referred to is, hopefully, intentional and not a reflection of intellectual incapacity.

Free stuff is never free.

> Free stuff is never free.

And if you make it free and guaranteed, say like college, it tends to get expensive for everyone who pays for it, rather quickly.

 

[there4eyeM]

Is English anyone's first language here?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

American politics swing back a forth like a pendulum. The last administration gave significant tax benefits ro [sic] people in the highest tax brackets. The new administration wants to give benefits to the lower brackets in the form of good jobs and infrastructure.

And there is the problem, with this country, that there are so many clueless idiots who actually believe this about the kleptocrats.

 

[Camp]

American politics swing back a forth like a pendulum. The last administration gave significant tax benefits ro [sic] people in the highest tax brackets. The new administration wants to give benefits to the lower brackets in the form of good jobs and infrastructure.

And there is the problem, with this country, that there are so many clueless idiots who actually believe this about the kleptocrats.

Ya, building infrastructure and creating good-paying jobs will be horrible for the American economy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is English anyone's first language here?

Yes.
You need help with English and economics?

 

[daveman]

Is English anyone's first language here?

Are you angry because we saw though your attempt to put a veneer of intellectualism on your desire to steal?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And there is the problem, with this country, that there are so many clueless idiots who actually believe this about the kleptocrats.

Ya, building infrastructure and creating good-paying jobs will be horrible for the American economy.

The point is that you're so damn stupid and brainwashed that you actually believe that Biden's policies are going to create, rather than destroy jobs, and help build our infrastructure.

You're a gullible sucker who has fallen for a mediocre scammer.