Why the poor should be taxed more heavily.

[alan1]

Alli and Mountain Man, get over yourselves. You are on the inverted side of this discussion, and are morally and constitutionally wrong about the subject. The majority spoke last fall, the majority will speak in Congress this fall, and if you want to squeal, go ahead. No one cares.

Please explain how I am morally wrong because I prefer that private charity help the poor rather than letting the government do it by taxing me.
Then show me in the constitution where it says the government is supposed to be the know-all give-all charity, and back that up with quotes from the framers of the constitution. I can provide a lot of quotes from the framers of the constitution that say just the opposite.

 

[alan1]

We should tax sex to discourage the spread of AIDS, and also unwanted pregnancies.

We should tax abortion, and the AIDS patients too, just in case the sex tax wasn't enough to control things.

How ya going to tax them self fulfilling masturbation experts?

Masturbation doesn't spread AIDS nor cause pregnancy, nor lead to abortion.
I'd masturbate for a tax write off.

 

[Care4all]

At the behest of unfair taxation foisted at the point of a GUN, correct?

And we have no say? How arrogant of you.

Define unfair taxation.

Read the original Intent of the Founders. Personal Income was never supposed to be taxed.

Yes, that's correct. I gave you some more homework. But I don't expect complience. You think it's grand to steal sweat equity from one to give to another too damned lazy to do for themselves.

i thought it was ones own labor that was not suppose to be taxed? where is that part, do you remember....i just came in to the thread...did you post that already?

i do recognize that labor and income might be the same in today's world...

care

 

[The T]

This is where you tell me God won't recognize me if I don't support mandatory government health care.

Goes without saying doesn't it? After all? Didn't the Libs invoke the name of Jesus because so many were upset at being taxed too much, when the issue of charity is one of personal choice, rather than forced by the point of a gun aka Government mandate?

 

[The T]

Define unfair taxation.

Read the original Intent of the Founders. Personal Income was never supposed to be taxed.

Yes, that's correct. I gave you some more homework. But I don't expect complience. You think it's grand to steal sweat equity from one to give to another too damned lazy to do for themselves.

i thought it was ones own labor that was not suppose to be taxed? where is that part, do you remember....i just came in to the thread...did you post that already?

i do recognize that labor and income might be the same in today's world...

care

What do you think personal income is? It's called sweat equity.

 

[The T]

Alli and Mountain Man, get over yourselves. You are on the inverted side of this discussion, and are morally and constitutionally wrong about the subject. The majority spoke last fall, the majority will speak in Congress this fall, and if you want to squeal, go ahead. No one cares.

Please explain how I am morally wrong because I prefer that private charity help the poor rather than letting the government do it by taxing me.
Then show me in the constitution where it says the government is supposed to be the know-all give-all charity, and back that up with quotes from the framers of the constitution. I can provide a lot of quotes from the framers of the constitution that say just the opposite.

Exactly. But then the words of the Founders were 200+ years ago, and don't matter anymore...FORGET for a moment that the Constitution dictates what the government may NOT do?

This is what these people ignore.

 

[alan1]

If you are speaking of the federal government, I don't approve of the tax setup as it is, As such, I can't say yes to your idea. If you are speaking of the respective states, I would say that is their call.

The federal government has already decided to use taxation as a method to discourage certain behavior. Why haven't they discouraged poverty via taxation if that is such a good method?

It's hard to be discouraged if you already don't have anything.
Have you ever met anyone poor? Seriously?

It's already being done to the wealthiest. Their response has been to hide money in offshore accounts and to move their companies overseas to avoid taxation. It's not working out to well now, is it?

Met anyone poor? Hell, I've been poor myself. At the time, all my friends were poor as well, it was the circle I ran in.

if all I had was a forty ouncer & the local man was out to get it, I'd go hide it too. If I happened to have an entire distillery & vats of beer in the basement & then went to hide that one 40 ouncer in my hand, I'd look like one stupid selfish son of *****.

But hey, it's your logic game.

Hehe, interestingly enough, I started brewing my own beer when I was poor, it was a lot cheaper than buying beer. One could say that perhaps I rose out of poverty by brewing my own beer. I took first place in stouts and second place overall in the county fair. PM me if you want the recipe.

 

[Father Time]

Poor people, for the most part, make poor choices which lead to them being poor.

Heavier taxation results in higher motivation to get the hell out of the rut they're in. And if they aren't capable of it, it helps to pay for their predicament.

HOMELESS people, on the other hand, are oblivious to things like preventative medical care and housing. Why? Because they're batshit crazy and CHOOSE not to pursue those things.

So you really think that being in poverty isn't enough motivation to earn more and that taxes will be the extra nudge needed to motivate them?

Ok...

Although such taxes are still corrupt social engineering and frankly abusive. If the poor are happy being poor why should we tax them to try to force them to do well? I thought real conservatives hated nannyish-government that thinks it knows best for the populace.

Once again to paraphrase Dick Armey
"The only legitimite reason to levy a tax is to raise money, anything else is corruption"

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

Poor people, for the most part, make poor choices which lead to them being poor.

Heavier taxation results in higher motivation to get the hell out of the rut they're in. And if they aren't capable of it, it helps to pay for their predicament.

HOMELESS people, on the other hand, are oblivious to things like preventative medical care and housing. Why? Because they're batshit crazy and CHOOSE not to pursue those things.

So you really think that being in poverty isn't enough motivation to earn more and that taxes will be the extra nudge needed to motivate them?

Ok...

Although such taxes are still corrupt social engineering and frankly abusive. If the poor are happy being poor why should we tax them to try to force them to do well? I thought real conservatives hated nannyish-government that thinks it knows best for the populace.

Sure proves the hypocrisy on the right, doesn't it... Only thing crazy here is the alley babbler, LOL.... can't keep her story straight....

 

[alan1]

Sure proves the hypocrisy on the right, doesn't it... Only thing crazy here is the alley babbler, LOL.... can't keep her story straight....

Oh, I suppose that when the left hollers to tax the rich more, but can't stand when the tables are turned and somebody says to tax the poor more, that isn't hypocrisy to argue against it.

 

[The T]

Poor people, for the most part, make poor choices which lead to them being poor.

Heavier taxation results in higher motivation to get the hell out of the rut they're in. And if they aren't capable of it, it helps to pay for their predicament.

HOMELESS people, on the other hand, are oblivious to things like preventative medical care and housing. Why? Because they're batshit crazy and CHOOSE not to pursue those things.

So you really think that being in poverty isn't enough motivation to earn more and that taxes will be the extra nudge needed to motivate them?

Ok...

Although such taxes are still corrupt social engineering and frankly abusive. If the poor are happy being poor why should we tax them to try to force them to do well? I thought real conservatives hated nannyish-government that thinks it knows best for the populace.

Once again to paraphrase Dick Armey
"The only legitimite reason to levy a tax is to raise money, anything else is corruption"

So? Are you a FAN of "Lotteries" that are nation wide? What are they but a "poor Mans' Tax?

 

[alan1]

Poor people, for the most part, make poor choices which lead to them being poor.

Heavier taxation results in higher motivation to get the hell out of the rut they're in. And if they aren't capable of it, it helps to pay for their predicament.

HOMELESS people, on the other hand, are oblivious to things like preventative medical care and housing. Why? Because they're batshit crazy and CHOOSE not to pursue those things.

So you really think that being in poverty isn't enough motivation to earn more and that taxes will be the extra nudge needed to motivate them?

Ok...

Although such taxes are still corrupt social engineering and frankly abusive. If the poor are happy being poor why should we tax them to try to force them to do well? I thought real conservatives hated nannyish-government that thinks it knows best for the populace.

Once again to paraphrase Dick Armey
"The only legitimite reason to levy a tax is to raise money, anything else is corruption"

So? Are you a FAN of "Lotteries" that are nation wide? What are they but a "poor Mans' Tax?

Ask him if he's ever read George Orwell's "1984".

 

[The T]

Sure proves the hypocrisy on the right, doesn't it... Only thing crazy here is the alley babbler, LOL.... can't keep her story straight....

Oh, I suppose that when the left hollers to tax the rich more, but can't stand when the tables are turned and somebody says to tax the poor more, that isn't hypocrisy to argue against it.

There isn't any arguement against the premise of your entire thread. Regardless of the politics behind taxation?

It's ALL behaviour modification courtesy of our power-hungry electeds across the board regardless of your station in life.

It's all CONTROL in their favour. I find it interesting in the way that you bracketed the discussion originally, the way that the on-board STATISTS have answered. It's quite telling.

I think you have proven your theory, beyond any doubt *i* ever had, and Kudos for the exercise.

 

[alan1]

Sure proves the hypocrisy on the right, doesn't it... Only thing crazy here is the alley babbler, LOL.... can't keep her story straight....

Oh, I suppose that when the left hollers to tax the rich more, but can't stand when the tables are turned and somebody says to tax the poor more, that isn't hypocrisy to argue against it.

There isn't any arguement against the premise of your entire thread. Regardless of the politics behind taxation?

It's ALL behaviour modification courtesy of our power-hungry electeds across the board regardless of your station in life.

It's all CONTROL in their favour. I find it interesting in the way that you bracketed the discussion originally, the way that the on-board STATISTS have answered. It's quite telling.

I think you have proven your theory, beyond any doubt *i* ever had, and Kudos for the exercise.

But you do you think any leftist statists got the point?

 

[Modbert]

Your bashing of poor people lies in ignorance really. When I say "bash" I will refer to that in my #3 comment.

1.) You have nothing to tax from the poor, many of them can't even afford food. Many of them don't even have jobs for you to tax from. Going to tax the change they get from people?

2.) 24% of the "poor" or homeless really are children. 42% of those children whom are "poor" or rather homeless are under 5 years old. Roughly 20% of the homeless have severe mental illnesses. And around 40% of the homeless or poor population are veterans. With 13% of the total homeless population being veterans.

3.) Poor people do not enjoy being poor. While at the same time, you think the Rich will suffer if their tax bracket goes from 35% to 39%. When Poor people are taxed more, they can no longer afford food, heating, and clothes. When Rich people are taxed more, they can no longer afford what? Their jets?

4.) Once upon a time, when this country wasn't supposedly "Socialist" as you like to think now, the rich use to pay 60-90% of their income in taxes. So if you think 39% is alot, you need to get a reality check.

 

[alan1]

Your bashing of poor people lies in ignorance really.

1.) You have nothing to tax from the poor, many of them can't even afford food. Many of them don't even have jobs for you to tax from. Going to tax the change they get from people?

2.) 24% of the "poor" or homeless really are children. 42% of those children whom are "poor" or rather homeless are under 5 years old. Roughly 20% of the homeless have severe mental illnesses. And around 40% of the homeless or poor population are veterans. With 13% of the total homeless population being veterans.

3.) Poor people do not enjoy being poor. While at the same time, you think the Rich will suffer if their tax bracket goes from 35% to 39%. When Poor people are taxed more, they can no longer afford food, heating, and clothes. When Rich people are taxed more, they can no longer afford what? Their jets?

4.) Once upon a time, when this country wasn't supposedly "Socialist" as you like to think now, the rich use to pay 60-90% of their income in taxes. So if you think 39% is alot, you need to get a reality check.

See your first sentence, where have I "bashed poor people"? This is now two threads where you have made that false claim that I have "bashed poor people". Is truth something you don't understand?

 

[Care4all]

Read the original Intent of the Founders. Personal Income was never supposed to be taxed.

Yes, that's correct. I gave you some more homework. But I don't expect complience. You think it's grand to steal sweat equity from one to give to another too damned lazy to do for themselves.

i thought it was ones own labor that was not suppose to be taxed? where is that part, do you remember....i just came in to the thread...did you post that already?

i do recognize that labor and income might be the same in today's world...

care

What do you think personal income is? It's called sweat equity.

There was a difference....labor was not supposed to be taxed, but income earned other than by your own labor such as loaning a man money and earning interest on it, the interest earned on it was susceptible to a tax, if they felt like taxing such, it could be....if memory serves me from 20 some years ago studying it?

I would need a refresher course to be certain, but this is the way i thought when walking away from the lesson....labor, working was considered more precious and valuable to society than those who took the fruits of your labor and made money off of it...capital gains and dividend income was not put up on a pedestal but ones labor was....and not taxable.

 

[Modbert]

See your first sentence, where have I "bashed poor people"? This is now two threads where you have made that false claim that I have "bashed poor people". Is truth something you don't understand?

Considering I just posted a bunch of facts which you failed to address, that's a stupid question to ask.

To address your thread, I realize the point of your thread is what you just stated not so long ago. However, you act like raising taxes on the Rich will make much of an impact as it would upon the poor, which is ignorant in a way.

As to my comments of using the word "bashing". I'll step up and say it was a poor choice of words, so I apologize. However, I still think you're being a bit ignorant when it comes this issue. Not every single poor person is someone who is just cheating the welfare system or being lazy. Some are too sick to work, too disabled, too young, etc.

So I do hope we go beyond this and have a fruitful discussion.

 

[alan1]

See your first sentence, where have I "bashed poor people"? This is now two threads where you have made that false claim that I have "bashed poor people". Is truth something you don't understand?

Considering I just posted a bunch of facts which you failed to address, that's a stupid question to ask.

To address your thread, I realize the point of your thread is what you just stated not so long ago. However, you act like raising taxes on the Rich will make much of an impact upon the poor, which is ignorant in a way.

As to my comments of using the word "bashing". I'll step up and say it was a poor choice of words, so I apologize. However, I still think you're being a bit ignorant when it comes this issue. Not every single poor person is someone who is just cheating the welfare system or being lazy. Some are too sick to work, too disabled, too young, etc.

So I do hope we go beyond this and have a fruitful discussion.

It's hard to have a fruitful discussion when you make statements like the one I put in red. I never said anything of the sort, so why did you bring that up and try and attribute it to me?
First you claim I was "bashing the poor", now you this. Neither of which is anything I have said, and you want me to have a "fruitful discussion" with you? I'll have an honest discussion with you when you quite lying.

 

[Modbert]

It's hard to have a fruitful discussion when you make statements like the one I put in red. I never said anything of the sort, so why did you bring that up and try and attribute it to me?
First you claim I was "bashing the poor", now you this. Neither of which is anything I have said, and you want me to have a "fruitful discussion" with you? I'll have an honest discussion with you when you quite lying.

I never attributed the statement to you. I was speaking in general terms. If it were going to be about you, I'd say you specifically like I did in the first place.