So Joe... what is the "fair share"???

[Orangecat]

Let’s hit them there

The fact that you want to "hit" other taxpayers with higher rates only reveals what a jealous loser you are, kid.

 

[Nostra]

 

[Couchpotato]

View attachment 541820

But no one actually paid those rates.

This has been debunked over and over.

 

[Orangecat]

So all taxes should just be voluntary contributions?

Your reading comprehension blows, kid.

 

[Orangecat]

The ultra wealthy will be able to dodge your tax because they don’t spend as large a percentage of their wealth on consumer goods.

A lesser percentage of a greater amount isn't "dodging" a tax, you illiterate imbecile.

 

[jc456]

How is it that the wealthy pay the overwhelming majority of income taxes if we 'subsidize them'? How is it the bottom half pay next to nothing in income taxes?

you're trying to explain english to a commie.

 

[jc456]

fair share undefined.

 

[Orangecat]

I think the tax should be a flat 10% from dollar 1 to the last penny…no deductions, no loopholes, then it not only would be equal taxation, but that should be enough.

Agreed, but on consumption, not earnings.

 

[Orangecat]

From simple minds come simple plans.

Indeed:

50 percent on income above $1 million

 

[Orangecat]

You think I flip burgers, or better yet, I'm unemployed?

Is that what you think?

Judging by your posts, I think you're a useful idiot for the marxist puppetmasters you idolize.

 

[Orangecat]

No Ponzi Scheme pays out for 80 years

The one that the government mandates contributions to does.

 

[bripat9643]

What do you call the 50s and 60s?

I call it them time when all our competitors had been bombed into the stone age.

 

[Nostra]

No Ponzi Scheme pays out for 80 years

It does when you have the force of govt to collect.

 

[rightwinger]

That is a small part of income taxes....marginal rates. The total tax burden of each income level is what you referred to, so your lil chart means nothing.

move those goal posts

 

[rightwinger]

The one that the government mandates contributions to does.

Hence, it is no Ponzi Scheme
It has a steady stream of revenue

 

[Nostra]

Hence, it is no Ponzi Scheme
It has a steady stream of revenue

It is the very definition of a ponzi scheme, Hack.

 

[Orangecat]

If X dollars in contributions are needed to fund 2300 a month from age 65 to 90 why should anyone be forced to pay in more than X dollars?

Because marxism. Gotta redistribute wealth from the earners to the losers to buy their votes.

 

[Nostra]

move those goal posts

You moved them, Stupid.

 

[Orangecat]

Easy Peasy
Because I am not ridiculously wealthy

Nor intelligent, obviously.

 

[rightwinger]

It is the very definition of a ponzi scheme, Hack.

Nope
In a Ponzi Scheme the revenue stream dries up leaving investors with nothing.
SS has a steady revenue stream