What happens when we tax the rich.

[leftwinger]

Make all criminals serve their complete sentences. As it is criminals pretty much know how long they will actually be incarcerated. They play the system like a fine violin. Instead of early release for good behavior give them perks within the prison.

Everything makes me angry. TV. HOLLYWOOD, MEDIA, GOVT, voting, Congress keeps me upset. I live on Mute. Only looking here, cnbc.com, GP.com and sports (betting). I support Trump policy. I am getting fed up no one is jailed for Sedition or J6.

Mortgage fraud? Huh? Please. Lying to CONgress? Is that all you got? CONgress lies all day everyday....about Trump.

See Twatter for the 14 day barrage if LibStain lies bashing Trump. Like an explosion. 10000:1 Stain bombed the boards. Not street stain but under Congress Senators or House names, even Obama. All day everyday. Lie after lie. Spinning liars. It seemed to startup during shutdown.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

No. Providing necessities of life as a government policy is a sure prescription to ensure that more and more people will be and/or remain poor. Benjamin Franklin recognized this in the 18th Century.

From BF's "Poor Richcard's Almanac": ". . .I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. . . "

We need to provide liberty, choices, options, opportunity for people to prosper more, for people to rise above poverty faster, for people to know that the way things are for them is not the way it has to be for them. For government to get out of the way so that people can strive for and reach their best potential.

In other words, promote the MAGA vision.

The Land of Opportunity Became Only for the Opulent

Franklin was referring to the White poor, the people who came here from Europe to escape hereditary power and became prosperous.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

That might kill the incentive to "ear it" to "accimulateit" to pass it on.

We Must Take a Pass on Passing It On

Preppy propaganda, or the people who don't have children wouldn't care about getting richer.

The HeirDads are demanding too much. If it really were an incentive, it still would be as impermissible as the right to have sex on demand with their employees.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

You want the government to provide cradle to grave subsistance for everybody.

You Preppy-lovers want the spawn oozed out from a plutocrat's trophy wife to live cradle to grave off Daddy's Money

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Leaving something for your children is Biblical. Proverbs 13:22.

Spare the rod and spoil the child

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

"The poor you will always have with you." J. Christ

A clue that Jesus was a flunky of the rich, which the history of his church proved many times over

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I'm for a single tax rate for all money received (regardless of source) minus any expenses paid to earn any part of that income. So I don't believe were all that far apart in thought but have just 3 questions to get a better understanding.

1. Would you get rid of itemizing deduction for costs in excess of that low threshold?

2. If we keep the ability to itemize deductions, would the threshold adequately account for costs laid to derive any part of that income?

If so, I'd hate it to be so low that it becomes an accounting nightmare forcing taxpayers to track and itemize all those costs.

For tax year 2025, the standard deduction amounts are $31,500 for married couples filing jointly, $15,750 for single filers, and $23,625 for heads of households.

3. I believe the current standard deductions are certainly adequate but am wondering what your notion is about how low that threshold should be?

If you care to respond, thanks in advance.

Americans deserve the right to tell the government what percentage of their tax liability should go to each Department

 

[Woodznutz]

A clue that Jesus was a flunky of the rich, which the history of his church proved many times over

Well, Jesus was a person of some means during his working life. Not so much during his ministry. His church has never been well endowed (the RCC and some Evangelical churches maybe but not his).

 

[Foxfyre]

The Land of Opportunity Became Only for the Opulent

Franklin was referring to the White poor, the people who came here from Europe to escape hereditary power and became prosperous.

Franklin specified no particular race or class of people. From what I've read of the man, his opinion were pretty much universal re the condition of humankind.

White people have had the benefit of the more temperate climates they have mostly inhabited plus the benefit of Christianity that inadvertently promoted more prosperity than any other religion. That is not racist in any way. It is just an accident of circumstances.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

We need better students.

Pay them for their grades

 

[Woodznutz]

Pay them for their grades

Not a bad idea. That or some other incentive.

 

[Woodznutz]

So you want the poor to remain poor. You want the government to provide cradle to grave subsistance for everybody.

I rather think Benjamin Franklin's point of view was far more compassionate than that.

The low earners will still have to buy the houses. It's the city's job to make sure there are homes built that they can afford.

 

[Moonglow]

Franklin specified no particular race or class of people. From what I've read of the man, his opinion were pretty much universal re the condition of humankind.

White people have had the benefit of the more temperate climates they have mostly inhabited plus the benefit of Christianity that inadvertently promoted more prosperity than any other religion. That is not racist in any way. It is just an accident of circumstances.

for a long time, it was considered a sin for Christians to charge interest, a practice called usury, especially when lending to a fellow Christian. This view was rooted in Old Testament laws and the Christian ethic of love, though it has evolved over time, and modern Christian views generally condemn only excessive or abusive interest rates, not interest itself.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Many youths suffer from a sense of entitlement and an attitude of nihilism.

Thread Bare Because of Attacking Only One Class of Moochers

Those are your precious Preppies, whom we must order to do it on their own. Others are suckered into imitating them and pay the consequences, while the spoiled-putrid brats never do.

The Preppy Progressives whose Daddies bought them the Democratic Party are never shamed about their own mooching. That's why they think welfare is the way to help their pet minorities and will never realize how harmful it is.

It is college-level stupidity to think that if I attack that welfare for the born-rich, I must support it for the born-poor. It's illogical to think that Whataboutism can only mean, "If your side does it for your base, so can our side for our base."

 

[Woodznutz]

for a long time, it was considered a sin for Christians to charge interest, a practice called usury, especially when lending to a fellow Christian. This view was rooted in Old Testament laws and the Christian ethic of love, though it has evolved over time, and modern Christian views generally condemn only excessive or abusive interest rates, not interest itself.

Prohibition of usury was an OT thing. Usury is mentioned in the NT as just business as usual.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Tax the rich leads to prisoners and drug talks? Huh?

Think outside the box.

1. Outsource almost prisoners overseas by level. Most violent to Africa. Pay them to deal with them. Save huge money.

2. Lesser criminals closer.

3. Only way you come back is great behavior.

Yeah....change the rules. So what. Shoot me. Shoot them dead if yhe act up.


Use the now open jail space for homeless and druggers. Force them clean. Released only to a job with restricted living.


Do something. Do it fast. Don't care who doesn't like it. These criminals lost rights to complain

Return to Sender

Definitely send illegals in prison back where they came from. But there's no reason we should pay their home countries anything.

 

[Woodznutz]

Thread Bare Because of Attacking Only One Class of Moochers

Those are your precious Preppies, whom we must order to do it on their own. Others are suckered into imitating them and pay the consequences, while the spoiled-putrid brats never do.

The Preppy Progressives whose Daddies bought them the Democratic Party are never shamed about their own mooching. That's why they think welfare is the way to help their pet minorities and will never realize how harmful it is.

It is college-level stupidity to think that if I attack that welfare for the born-rich, I must support it for the born-poor. It's illogical to think that Whataboutism can only mean, "If your side does it for your base, so can our side for our base."

It's always important to remember that money is a creation of the rich and powerful, and we play on their gameboard at our own risk. The rules for success for us are different than for them. They are born with the silver spoon. We need education, hard work, often sacrifice, and a bit o' luck wouldn't hurt.

 

[Foxfyre]

The low earners will still have to buy the houses. It's the city's job to make sure there are homes built that they can afford.

Since when? There is nothing whatsoever in the Constitution about providing the people with food, housing, healthcare or any other necessities of life. The Founders believed the people would do that for themselves if unhindered by dictatorial or oppressive government.

The city may or may not choose to provide low income housing, subsidized or whatever, but it is up to the people to decide whether that will be a priority.

 

[Foxfyre]

for a long time, it was considered a sin for Christians to charge interest, a practice called usury, especially when lending to a fellow Christian. This view was rooted in Old Testament laws and the Christian ethic of love, though it has evolved over time, and modern Christian views generally condemn only excessive or abusive interest rates, not interest itself.

Which is completely immaterial and non sequitur to the point made.

 

[Foxfyre]

You Preppy-lovers want the spawn oozed out from a plutocrat's trophy wife to live cradle to grave off Daddy's Money

Do you have any idea how dumb this sounds to somebody like me? Probably not. But do have a lovely afternoon.