"We need to redistribute wealth among Americans" WTF...why does this always sound so retarded to me?

[jc456]

Define onerous taxation for the one percent.

Corporate taxes.

There should be no individual taxes, Only corporate taxes.

why do you want to bring in less money? you should go to school.

 

[jc456]

Why is it that Conservatives never portray a tax cut for the higher brackets as a "redistribution of wealth"?

Tax cuts are not redistribution. Redistribution is taking from one group, such as through taxes, and giving it to another group, as in welfare. Cutting taxes merely allows people who earned that money to keep more of it. It does not take from a different group. I thought that was obvious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tax breaks for yachts, creates entire economies in less developed nations.

who gets that tax break?

 

[jc456]

You're right, Progressives don't make a college education affordable, they simply give more grants and make loans easier for students to borrow.

Keeps the money flowing from liberal professors back to democrats.

Reagan started cutting aid to public college in Cal. in 1965 and the GOP has been behind rising costs ever since- all to save greedy rich GOP idiots from paying their share...

Yet, the right wing insists on more government for a drug war, not education.

We give billions of dollars to education, yet people like you still come out of it all fucked up in what little brain that you have.

The GOP cuts fed aid for states every year, dingbats. All to save the rich from paying their share...

do states collect taxes? why does the fed gov need to support states exactly? explain to the class.

 

[jc456]

Liberals create lies and repeat them over and over and will riot upon you if you can not prove that something that did not happen did not happen
The Thing about Trump saying some of the white whatevers were "good people" Never Happened. Just did not happen .
Libs live in feelings not facts so if the facts don't exist or don't match what they wish had/would occur then they make stuff up and they are safe in their feelings space again.
One would think that knowingly lying would bother ones conscience but I guess you have to have one first

exactly, Trump never made the comment. and all the libs lie. so, now we know our politics.

 

[jc456]

People who don't have money are generally poor in managing it and low on motivation whereas I and many are good money managers and not willing to give it away to those who are not

You make it seem like it is not simply, class warfare.

The rich get to practice with capital more often than the poor. It really is that simple. Every guy should know, that, practice makes perfect. Only wo-men can be clueless and Causeless about that.

the rich invest their money. they make more after the investment. they got there from hard work and education. why is it liberals are against the poor learning the skills of the rich person? I've never understood that. why are libs against the poor getting their own money and becoming rich themselves? why do you all keep them dependent on you? for a vote? really that is what you got a vote for power. ahhhh got it.

 

[danielpalos]

The right wing wants more government and refuses to pay for it.

No, the GOP establishment wants more government for their career politicians to control. A libertarian/conservative wants more individuality and freedom....

End the drug war, right wingers. Don't be all political talk and no political action, even wo-men in the non-porn sector, can do that.

Never was for the drug war... lol
Burn the collective that's how you get rid of corruption

The right wing, "proclaims in public venues", they are for smaller government; but, try to mostly only reduce social services for the poor while alleging the "equality of neutrality" of revenue.

do you agree that 45% of americans don't pay income tax nor social security tax or medicare tax? do you or not?

Do you agree that the right wing is full of fantasy for not ending our wars on crime, drugs, and terror to abolish our income tax or not?

 

[jc456]

This is where the wheels always fall off the tricycle of those who hate the rich. Need has nothing to do with it, just as need has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why does a One Percenter, need any tax breaks.

Why do you need to own a gun? The point is, onerous taxation is morally and ethically wrong. The left, never gets it. That's why they can't be trusted with the keys to the treasury.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Define onerous taxation for the one percent.

Any percentage that causes them to shield income so it won't be taxed. If you allow them returns greater than the tax rates, they won't hide it and more will be circulated in the economy. Why do you want to raise taxes on them again when it won't make any difference to the debt, as I've pointed out?

lol. don't you just love, class warfare. put them in jail if they avoid taxes and claim the rich should provide an example of the finest form of Patriotism for our Republic.

And,

Anyone on welfare who has to work for food stamps, gets automatic stock options in for-profit prisons.

we know the libturds love class warfare, thanks for admitting it.

 

[danielpalos]

People who don't have money are generally poor in managing it and low on motivation whereas I and many are good money managers and not willing to give it away to those who are not

You make it seem like it is not simply, class warfare.

The rich get to practice with capital more often than the poor. It really is that simple. Every guy should know, that, practice makes perfect. Only wo-men can be clueless and Causeless about that.

the rich invest their money. they make more after the investment. they got there from hard work and education. why is it liberals are against the poor learning the skills of the rich person? I've never understood that.

why should the left take the right wing seriously about any Thing?

According to PolitiFact and others, in 2011 the 400 wealthiest Americans "have more wealth than half of all Americans combined."[22][23] Inherited wealth may help explain why many Americans who have become rich may have had a "substantial head start".[24][25] In September 2012, according to the Institute for Policy Studies, "over 60 percent" of the Forbes richest 400 Americans "grew up in substantial privilege".[26]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

 

[jc456]

No, the GOP establishment wants more government for their career politicians to control. A libertarian/conservative wants more individuality and freedom....

End the drug war, right wingers. Don't be all political talk and no political action, even wo-men in the non-porn sector, can do that.

Never was for the drug war... lol
Burn the collective that's how you get rid of corruption

The right wing, "proclaims in public venues", they are for smaller government; but, try to mostly only reduce social services for the poor while alleging the "equality of neutrality" of revenue.

do you agree that 45% of americans don't pay income tax nor social security tax or medicare tax? do you or not?

Do you agree that the right wing is full of fantasy for not ending our wars on crime, drugs, and terror to abolish our income tax or not?

answer my question first.

 

[jc456]

People who don't have money are generally poor in managing it and low on motivation whereas I and many are good money managers and not willing to give it away to those who are not

You make it seem like it is not simply, class warfare.

The rich get to practice with capital more often than the poor. It really is that simple. Every guy should know, that, practice makes perfect. Only wo-men can be clueless and Causeless about that.

the rich invest their money. they make more after the investment. they got there from hard work and education. why is it liberals are against the poor learning the skills of the rich person? I've never understood that.

why should the left take the right wing seriously about any Thing?

According to PolitiFact and others, in 2011 the 400 wealthiest Americans "have more wealth than half of all Americans combined."[22][23] Inherited wealth may help explain why many Americans who have become rich may have had a "substantial head start".[24][25] In September 2012, according to the Institute for Policy Studies, "over 60 percent" of the Forbes richest 400 Americans "grew up in substantial privilege".[26]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

I agree. cause we sure as hell know you are full of shit and love dependent people to keep the elitists in office. I'm against elitists and I care not which party they come from. they are all anti american. Trump is all about America.

 

[rightwinger]

I always find this narrative fascinating....The top 1% of wage earners already pay 45% of all income tax paid and 45% of American's pay no income tax at all.
That said, how is the notion that our most productive positive contributors owe more manifested?
Why is it never said that we have too many bottom feeders stealing from the middle class and how does that not make more sense to sane rational folks? Take the $100 billion we spend on illegal beaners every year...what if we diverted that cash alone and funneled it through the hands of the middle class and REAL Americans?

Why don't you ask why Ronald Reagan gave the 1% more of the working class' earnings? That was the biggest redistribution of wealth in world history.

Reagan promised that his tax cuts to the wealthy would "trickle down" to the working classes but it never happened. Instead, American wealth trickled up to the 1%.

Before Reagan's tax cuts and war on unions, working class Americans had equity and savings. That's been wiped out. Now the working poor need social assistance just to put food on the table.

Why do conservatives never talk about this transfer of wealth?

Maybe the reason why Ronald Reagan gave the 1% more of the tax breaks than the working classes is because the 1%ers pay more into the tax system? Of course, and the poor who never gets a tax break(EITC) say it isn't FAIR. If you want more of a tax break, instead of being a victim of liberalism and a loser, get a fucking job, or create your own business that provides you an income that puts you in the 1% and be a winner. You lib fucks are the most stupid people in the universe.

If most of our nations revenue comes from one group and you cut taxes on that group, you have a substantial drop in revenue

Less services, more of the burden shifts to the state and local level, working class has to do with less

Reduction in revenue...no big deal...cut expense.
It's time "our rich" stop spoon feeding the worlds filth....bye, bye DACA...keep the hammer down on illegal immigration....tens of billions saved....TA-DA!

No....actually you establish your spending first and then adjust taxes to cover it

Cutting taxes first and then assuming you could adjust spending has never worked

 

[danielpalos]

End the drug war, right wingers. Don't be all political talk and no political action, even wo-men in the non-porn sector, can do that.

Never was for the drug war... lol
Burn the collective that's how you get rid of corruption

The right wing, "proclaims in public venues", they are for smaller government; but, try to mostly only reduce social services for the poor while alleging the "equality of neutrality" of revenue.

do you agree that 45% of americans don't pay income tax nor social security tax or medicare tax? do you or not?

Do you agree that the right wing is full of fantasy for not ending our wars on crime, drugs, and terror to abolish our income tax or not?

answer my question first.

So what. Why is it relevant? Taxes are based on ability to pay, it is a Capital concept. Taxes based on equality are a form of socialism.

 

[danielpalos]

People who don't have money are generally poor in managing it and low on motivation whereas I and many are good money managers and not willing to give it away to those who are not

You make it seem like it is not simply, class warfare.

The rich get to practice with capital more often than the poor. It really is that simple. Every guy should know, that, practice makes perfect. Only wo-men can be clueless and Causeless about that.

the rich invest their money. they make more after the investment. they got there from hard work and education. why is it liberals are against the poor learning the skills of the rich person? I've never understood that.

why should the left take the right wing seriously about any Thing?

According to PolitiFact and others, in 2011 the 400 wealthiest Americans "have more wealth than half of all Americans combined."[22][23] Inherited wealth may help explain why many Americans who have become rich may have had a "substantial head start".[24][25] In September 2012, according to the Institute for Policy Studies, "over 60 percent" of the Forbes richest 400 Americans "grew up in substantial privilege".[26]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

I agree. cause we sure as hell know you are full of shit and love dependent people to keep the elitists in office. I'm against elitists and I care not which party they come from. they are all anti american. Trump is all about America.

all you have is propaganda and rhetoric, dear.

 

[BrokeLoser]

I always find this narrative fascinating....The top 1% of wage earners already pay 45% of all income tax paid and 45% of American's pay no income tax at all.
That said, how is the notion that our most productive positive contributors owe more manifested?
Why is it never said that we have too many bottom feeders stealing from the middle class and how does that not make more sense to sane rational folks? Take the $100 billion we spend on illegal beaners every year...what if we diverted that cash alone and funneled it through the hands of the middle class and REAL Americans?

Why don't you ask why Ronald Reagan gave the 1% more of the working class' earnings? That was the biggest redistribution of wealth in world history.

Reagan promised that his tax cuts to the wealthy would "trickle down" to the working classes but it never happened. Instead, American wealth trickled up to the 1%.

Before Reagan's tax cuts and war on unions, working class Americans had equity and savings. That's been wiped out. Now the working poor need social assistance just to put food on the table.

Why do conservatives never talk about this transfer of wealth?

Maybe the reason why Ronald Reagan gave the 1% more of the tax breaks than the working classes is because the 1%ers pay more into the tax system? Of course, and the poor who never gets a tax break(EITC) say it isn't FAIR. If you want more of a tax break, instead of being a victim of liberalism and a loser, get a fucking job, or create your own business that provides you an income that puts you in the 1% and be a winner. You lib fucks are the most stupid people in the universe.

If most of our nations revenue comes from one group and you cut taxes on that group, you have a substantial drop in revenue

Less services, more of the burden shifts to the state and local level, working class has to do with less

Reduction in revenue...no big deal...cut expense.
It's time "our rich" stop spoon feeding the worlds filth....bye, bye DACA...keep the hammer down on illegal immigration....tens of billions saved....TA-DA!

No....actually you establish your spending first and then adjust taxes to cover it

Cutting taxes first and then assuming you could adjust spending has never worked

YES!
I love semantics...I'll play along.
Actually "budgeting" or "balancing" expense against revenue is usually projected and set concurrently.

 

[danielpalos]

Why don't you ask why Ronald Reagan gave the 1% more of the working class' earnings? That was the biggest redistribution of wealth in world history.

Reagan promised that his tax cuts to the wealthy would "trickle down" to the working classes but it never happened. Instead, American wealth trickled up to the 1%.

Before Reagan's tax cuts and war on unions, working class Americans had equity and savings. That's been wiped out. Now the working poor need social assistance just to put food on the table.

Why do conservatives never talk about this transfer of wealth?

Maybe the reason why Ronald Reagan gave the 1% more of the tax breaks than the working classes is because the 1%ers pay more into the tax system? Of course, and the poor who never gets a tax break(EITC) say it isn't FAIR. If you want more of a tax break, instead of being a victim of liberalism and a loser, get a fucking job, or create your own business that provides you an income that puts you in the 1% and be a winner. You lib fucks are the most stupid people in the universe.

If most of our nations revenue comes from one group and you cut taxes on that group, you have a substantial drop in revenue

Less services, more of the burden shifts to the state and local level, working class has to do with less

Reduction in revenue...no big deal...cut expense.
It's time "our rich" stop spoon feeding the worlds filth....bye, bye DACA...keep the hammer down on illegal immigration....tens of billions saved....TA-DA!

No....actually you establish your spending first and then adjust taxes to cover it

Cutting taxes first and then assuming you could adjust spending has never worked

YES!
I love semantics...I'll play along.
Actually "budgeting" or "balancing" expense against revenue is usually projected and set concurrently.

Current metrics plus one percent growth.

 

[rightwinger]

Why don't you ask why Ronald Reagan gave the 1% more of the working class' earnings? That was the biggest redistribution of wealth in world history.

Reagan promised that his tax cuts to the wealthy would "trickle down" to the working classes but it never happened. Instead, American wealth trickled up to the 1%.

Before Reagan's tax cuts and war on unions, working class Americans had equity and savings. That's been wiped out. Now the working poor need social assistance just to put food on the table.

Why do conservatives never talk about this transfer of wealth?

Maybe the reason why Ronald Reagan gave the 1% more of the tax breaks than the working classes is because the 1%ers pay more into the tax system? Of course, and the poor who never gets a tax break(EITC) say it isn't FAIR. If you want more of a tax break, instead of being a victim of liberalism and a loser, get a fucking job, or create your own business that provides you an income that puts you in the 1% and be a winner. You lib fucks are the most stupid people in the universe.

If most of our nations revenue comes from one group and you cut taxes on that group, you have a substantial drop in revenue

Less services, more of the burden shifts to the state and local level, working class has to do with less

Reduction in revenue...no big deal...cut expense.
It's time "our rich" stop spoon feeding the worlds filth....bye, bye DACA...keep the hammer down on illegal immigration....tens of billions saved....TA-DA!

No....actually you establish your spending first and then adjust taxes to cover it

Cutting taxes first and then assuming you could adjust spending has never worked

YES!
I love semantics...I'll play along.
Actually "budgeting" or "balancing" expense against revenue is usually projected and set concurrently.

Hasn't happened in twenty years

 

[hadit]

Why is it that Conservatives never portray a tax cut for the higher brackets as a "redistribution of wealth"?

Tax cuts are not redistribution. Redistribution is taking from one group, such as through taxes, and giving it to another group, as in welfare. Cutting taxes merely allows people who earned that money to keep more of it. It does not take from a different group. I thought that was obvious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tax breaks for yachts, creates entire economies in less developed nations.

Whereas higher taxes on yachts decimates the American yacht industry, as we already see.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[danielpalos]

Why is it that Conservatives never portray a tax cut for the higher brackets as a "redistribution of wealth"?

Tax cuts are not redistribution. Redistribution is taking from one group, such as through taxes, and giving it to another group, as in welfare. Cutting taxes merely allows people who earned that money to keep more of it. It does not take from a different group. I thought that was obvious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tax breaks for yachts, creates entire economies in less developed nations.

Whereas higher taxes on yachts decimates the American yacht industry, as we already see.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

End the work tax, right wingers. so minorities will want to work instead of avoiding, work taxes.

 

[BrokeLoser]

I’m hoping H B Lowrie can get in here and shed some light....he/she seems super knowledgeable on the subject.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Why is it that Conservatives never portray a tax cut for the higher brackets as a "redistribution of wealth"?

Tax cuts are not redistribution. Redistribution is taking from one group, such as through taxes, and giving it to another group, as in welfare. Cutting taxes merely allows people who earned that money to keep more of it. It does not take from a different group. I thought that was obvious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tax breaks for yachts, creates entire economies in less developed nations.

Whereas higher taxes on yachts decimates the American yacht industry, as we already see.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

End the work tax, right wingers. so minorities will want to work instead of avoiding, work taxes.

/------/
I'm all for cutting payroll tax if that's what you mean by "End the work tax,"