Conservative65
Gold Member
- Oct 14, 2014
- 26,127
- 2,208
- 265
- Banned
- #21
Charity involves a willful act by the giver not a mandate by the taker.
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.
Charity equals giving from ones heart.
Taxes equals redistribution of some one else wealth, whom you deem to take from (but you pay your fair so it is all yours)
Or
char·i·ty
ˈCHerədē/
noun
Public "charity" only needs a majority. Private charity can rely on Individual Absolutism simply because, private charity can only cover multitudes of sins, not official poverty.Charity equals giving from ones heart.
Taxes equals redistribution of some one else wealth, whom you deem to take from (but you pay your fair so it is all yours)
Or
char·i·ty
ˈCHerədē/
noun
Just posting this thread because the past 20 years I have been on the net, some liberal posters get confused and think taxation is the same as charity for some reason
Hey bear, taxation is the cost to be paid for living in the most successful form of society, government and economy that has ever been devised.
You seem to think everything should just be "free". What the fuck is up with that kind of thinking?
You know there are places you could move to that don't tax as high as we do. Why don't you move there?
Hey bear, taxation is the cost to be paid for living in the most successful form of society, government and economy that has ever been devised.
You seem to think everything should just be "free". What the fuck is up with that kind of thinking?
You know there are places you could move to that don't tax as high as we do. Why don't you move there?
In exchange for lower rates across the board? Yes. Every one of them.Just take an informal poll of any of your bestest right wing friends, Rabbi. Ask them if they are willing to give up their mortgage interest deduction and the employer sponsored health insurance tax exemption and their child tax credits.
I dont think anyone questioned whether someone had the right to do that. The question was whether it wasnt hypocritical of libs to force others to support programs that they want.Just posting this thread because the past 20 years I have been on the net, some liberal posters get confused and think taxation is the same as charity for some reason
The People have the right to decide to use the government to help the poor.
I was talking to friends in FBJust posting this thread because the past 20 years I have been on the net, some liberal posters get confused and think taxation is the same as charity for some reason
he People have the right tocide to use the government to help the poor.
Just posting this thread because the past 20 years I have been on the net, some liberal posters get confused and think taxation is the same as charity for some reason
The People have the right to decide to use the government to help the poor.
I dont think anyone questioned whether someone had the right to do that. The question was whether it wasnt hypocritical of libs to force others to support programs that they want.Just posting this thread because the past 20 years I have been on the net, some liberal posters get confused and think taxation is the same as charity for some reason
The People have the right to decide to use the government to help the poor.
Its the classic problem of democracy: the have nots are more numerous and figure out they can help themselves to what the haves have. This is why early states imposed a land owner or freehold requirement on voting. It's a shame we did away with it.I dont think anyone questioned whether someone had the right to do that. The question was whether it wasnt hypocritical of libs to force others to support programs that they want.Just posting this thread because the past 20 years I have been on the net, some liberal posters get confused and think taxation is the same as charity for some reason
The People have the right to decide to use the government to help the poor.
That's the problem. Many of those doing the deciding aren't funding the things on which they decide. On top of that, many receiving are the ones deciding that others should be forced to help them.
Its the classic problem of democracy: the have nots are more numerous and figure out they can help themselves to what the haves have. This is why early states imposed a land owner or freehold requirement on voting. It's a shame we did away with it.I dont think anyone questioned whether someone had the right to do that. The question was whether it wasnt hypocritical of libs to force others to support programs that they want.Just posting this thread because the past 20 years I have been on the net, some liberal posters get confused and think taxation is the same as charity for some reason
The People have the right to decide to use the government to help the poor.
That's the problem. Many of those doing the deciding aren't funding the things on which they decide. On top of that, many receiving are the ones deciding that others should be forced to help them.
Thats exactly it. Ask the libs here if they'd favor a 100% income tax on incomes over $100k and I guarantee every one will be for it. Because they've never made 100k in their lives so they conceive of anyone needing more than that.Its the classic problem of democracy: the have nots are more numerous and figure out they can help themselves to what the haves have. This is why early states imposed a land owner or freehold requirement on voting. It's a shame we did away with it.I dont think anyone questioned whether someone had the right to do that. The question was whether it wasnt hypocritical of libs to force others to support programs that they want.Just posting this thread because the past 20 years I have been on the net, some liberal posters get confused and think taxation is the same as charity for some reason
The People have the right to decide to use the government to help the poor.
That's the problem. Many of those doing the deciding aren't funding the things on which they decide. On top of that, many receiving are the ones deciding that others should be forced to help them.
They don't have a problem with whatever percentage of taxes is taken to fund the programs they support. It could be 10% or 100%. If they pay 0%, it doesn't affect them.
I always try once in awhile to solve that problem, but either way you go not fair to the other sideIts the classic problem of democracy: the have nots are more numerous and figure out they can help themselves to what the haves have. This is why early states imposed a land owner or freehold requirement on voting. It's a shame we did away with it.I dont think anyone questioned whether someone had the right to do that. The question was whether it wasnt hypocritical of libs to force others to support programs that they want.Just posting this thread because the past 20 years I have been on the net, some liberal posters get confused and think taxation is the same as charity for some reason
The People have the right to decide to use the government to help the poor.
That's the problem. Many of those doing the deciding aren't funding the things on which they decide. On top of that, many receiving are the ones deciding that others should be forced to help them.
Thats exactly it. Ask the libs here if they'd favor a 100% income tax on incomes over $100k and I guarantee every one will be for it. Because they've never made 100k in their lives so they conceive of anyone needing more than that.Its the classic problem of democracy: the have nots are more numerous and figure out they can help themselves to what the haves have. This is why early states imposed a land owner or freehold requirement on voting. It's a shame we did away with it.I dont think anyone questioned whether someone had the right to do that. The question was whether it wasnt hypocritical of libs to force others to support programs that they want.The People have the right to decide to use the government to help the poor.
That's the problem. Many of those doing the deciding aren't funding the things on which they decide. On top of that, many receiving are the ones deciding that others should be forced to help them.
They don't have a problem with whatever percentage of taxes is taken to fund the programs they support. It could be 10% or 100%. If they pay 0%, it doesn't affect them.