Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's the governments tax code...The federal government screwed everybody, much bigger fish to fry.The country has bigger fish to fry...Time to tax the fucking waltons!!!!
Yep, legislation to close the loopholes so that *all* of these corporations stop ripping off the taxpayer.
What?
It's the governments tax code...The federal government screwed everybody, much bigger fish to fry.The country has bigger fish to fry...Time to tax the fucking waltons!!!!
Yep, legislation to close the loopholes so that *all* of these corporations stop ripping off the taxpayer.
What?
The federal government screwed everybody, much bigger fish to fry.The country has bigger fish to fry...Time to tax the fucking waltons!!!!
Yep, legislation to close the loopholes so that *all* of these corporations stop ripping off the taxpayer.
What?
Time to tax the fucking waltons!!!!
There's another poster here who wants to go door to door scrounging a few dollars each out of the working poor. Your plan sounds a little less bizarre, but the question it raises is always the same:Time to tax the fucking waltons!!!!
Just ask liberals to voluntarily pay and extra $500 a month in taxes and you will have $300 billion a year to spend on your pet programs, way more money than the Waltons have. I'm sure libs will pay I mean they are passionate about helping the poor. /sarcasm
Bernie: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."I don't see how anyone can justify this.
Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, tweeted a startling statistic to his followers on July 22, 2012: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."
Sanders speaks and writes frequently about wealth distribution in the U.S., a hot-button issue among liberals and a rallying cry of the Occupy Wall Street Movement.
The Waltons, of course, are members of the proverbial 1 percent. But are they really sitting on that much wealth? We decided to check it out.
First, what is wealth?
In economics, wealth is commonly measured in terms of net worth, and it’s defined as the value of assets minus liabilities. For someone in the middle class, that could encompass the value of their 401(k) or other retirement accounts, bank savings and personal assets such as jewelry or cars, minus what they owe on a home mortgage, credit cards and a car note.
It does not include income -- what people earn in wages. For that reason, someone who earns a good salary but has little savings and owes a lot of money on their house would have a negative net worth.
In fact, because so many Americans invest in real estate to buy a home, middle-class wealth has been one of the biggest casualties of the housing-driven recession.
From 2007 to 2010, typical families lost 39 percent of their wealth, according to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, done every three years. In 2007, the median family net worth was $126,400. In 2010, it was $77,300, according to the survey.
Where the Waltons fit in
Six members of the Walton family appear on the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans. Christy Walton, widow of the late John Walton, leads the clan at No. 6 with a net worth of $25.3 billion as of March 2012. She is also the richest woman in the world for the seventh year in a row, according to Forbes. Here are the other five:
No. 9: Jim Walton, $23.7 billion
No. 10: Alice Walton, $23.3 billion
No. 11: S. Robson Walton, oldest son of Sam Walton, $23.1 billion
No. 103: Ann Walton Kroenke, $3.9 billion
No. 139: Nancy Walton Laurie, $3.4 billion
Don't worry about it, it's not hurt'n nobody.It's the governments tax code...The federal government screwed everybody, much bigger fish to fry.The country has bigger fish to fry...
Yep, legislation to close the loopholes so that *all* of these corporations stop ripping off the taxpayer.
What?
Yes. And do you know how to change the tax code? (Hint: the answer is in Post 818.)
Don't worry about it no skin off anybody's back.The federal government screwed everybody, much bigger fish to fry.The country has bigger fish to fry...Time to tax the fucking waltons!!!!
Yep, legislation to close the loopholes so that *all* of these corporations stop ripping off the taxpayer.
What?
The guy doesn't want anti-trust regs or regulations at all. He's blaming the federal government...Anti-government asshole is what he is.
The only reason the government didn't do its job is because assholes like Rustic put rich support assholes into power so they didn't.
There's another poster here who wants to go door to door scrounging a few dollars each out of the working poor. Your plan sounds a little less bizarre, but the question it raises is always the same:Time to tax the fucking waltons!!!!
Just ask liberals to voluntarily pay and extra $500 a month in taxes and you will have $300 billion a year to spend on your pet programs, way more money than the Waltons have. I'm sure libs will pay I mean they are passionate about helping the poor. /sarcasm
Why does your scenario make more sense to you than closing the loopholes that allow 20 major corporations to pay no taxes at all?
Why are y'all so terrified of angering the wealthy?
Don't Envy, it looks bad on you.Bernie: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."I don't see how anyone can justify this.
Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, tweeted a startling statistic to his followers on July 22, 2012: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."
Sanders speaks and writes frequently about wealth distribution in the U.S., a hot-button issue among liberals and a rallying cry of the Occupy Wall Street Movement.
The Waltons, of course, are members of the proverbial 1 percent. But are they really sitting on that much wealth? We decided to check it out.
First, what is wealth?
In economics, wealth is commonly measured in terms of net worth, and it’s defined as the value of assets minus liabilities. For someone in the middle class, that could encompass the value of their 401(k) or other retirement accounts, bank savings and personal assets such as jewelry or cars, minus what they owe on a home mortgage, credit cards and a car note.
It does not include income -- what people earn in wages. For that reason, someone who earns a good salary but has little savings and owes a lot of money on their house would have a negative net worth.
In fact, because so many Americans invest in real estate to buy a home, middle-class wealth has been one of the biggest casualties of the housing-driven recession.
From 2007 to 2010, typical families lost 39 percent of their wealth, according to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, done every three years. In 2007, the median family net worth was $126,400. In 2010, it was $77,300, according to the survey.
Where the Waltons fit in
Six members of the Walton family appear on the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans. Christy Walton, widow of the late John Walton, leads the clan at No. 6 with a net worth of $25.3 billion as of March 2012. She is also the richest woman in the world for the seventh year in a row, according to Forbes. Here are the other five:
No. 9: Jim Walton, $23.7 billion
No. 10: Alice Walton, $23.3 billion
No. 11: S. Robson Walton, oldest son of Sam Walton, $23.1 billion
No. 103: Ann Walton Kroenke, $3.9 billion
No. 139: Nancy Walton Laurie, $3.4 billion
Republicans think the Waltons don't own nearly enough.
There's another poster here who wants to go door to door scrounging a few dollars each out of the working poor. Your plan sounds a little less bizarre, but the question it raises is always the same:Time to tax the fucking waltons!!!!
Just ask liberals to voluntarily pay and extra $500 a month in taxes and you will have $300 billion a year to spend on your pet programs, way more money than the Waltons have. I'm sure libs will pay I mean they are passionate about helping the poor. /sarcasm
Why does your scenario make more sense to you than closing the loopholes that allow 20 major corporations to pay no taxes at all?
Why are y'all so terrified of angering the wealthy?
My post exists to mock the left's hypocrisy. They run their big fat hypocritical mouths about how other people should pay more taxes, the 'rich', corporations, whomever their enemy of the week is. But these leftist scum many of them well off could voluntarily give more money to the federal government but they don't.
There's another poster here who wants to go door to door scrounging a few dollars each out of the working poor. Your plan sounds a little less bizarre, but the question it raises is always the same:Time to tax the fucking waltons!!!!
Just ask liberals to voluntarily pay and extra $500 a month in taxes and you will have $300 billion a year to spend on your pet programs, way more money than the Waltons have. I'm sure libs will pay I mean they are passionate about helping the poor. /sarcasm
Why does your scenario make more sense to you than closing the loopholes that allow 20 major corporations to pay no taxes at all?
Why are y'all so terrified of angering the wealthy?
My post exists to mock the left's hypocrisy. They run their big fat hypocritical mouths about how other people should pay more taxes, the 'rich', corporations, whomever their enemy of the week is. But these leftist scum many of them well off could voluntarily give more money to the federal government but they don't.
Nice rant, but it doesn't answer why you're happy that 20 multi-billion-dollar corporations pay NO taxes (that's zero, zilch, nada) while you pay your fair share (or, to hear some of you go on, your unfair share).
Can you explain that to me in mathematical terms?
First we would have to cure your math issues, your ignorance of corporations and business, your ignorance of the tax code, and your tendency to drink liberal kool-aid. I'm brilliant but that's kind of a tall order.
First we would have to cure your math issues, your ignorance of corporations and business, your ignorance of the tax code, and your tendency to drink liberal kool-aid. I'm brilliant but that's kind of a tall order.
Start with what in the Forbes article you feel is "ignorant."
First we would have to cure your math issues, your ignorance of corporations and business, your ignorance of the tax code, and your tendency to drink liberal kool-aid. I'm brilliant but that's kind of a tall order.
Start with what in the Forbes article you feel is "ignorant."
(sigh) who do you think owns the corporations? Yes participants in your Democratic party public and private union pension plans.
First we would have to cure your math issues, your ignorance of corporations and business, your ignorance of the tax code, and your tendency to drink liberal kool-aid. I'm brilliant but that's kind of a tall order.
Start with what in the Forbes article you feel is "ignorant."
(sigh) who do you think owns the corporations? Yes participants in your Democratic party public and private union pension plans.
They're not "my" Democratic anything. And I assume you can provide some data to support that.
If it was feasible it would happen. But even with a republican congress nothing is going to happen. What you want is political suicide and nobody is going to do that. Heck cutting welfare now without creating jobs would quickly tank the economy so its economic suicide too.It's easily feasible. As I've noted numerous times, employers are not the legal guardians of their employees. They aren't legally obligated to provide them with food, clothing or housing. That's purely a fetish of commies like you.
It's not politically feasible. It's feasible by any other measure.
What I want is for things to continue as they are now, people freely negotiating a wage with their employers. How is that going to "tank the economy?" If anything, what you are demanding would tank Wal-Mart and any other company that pays less than a "living wage."
Almost everything you post is commie bullshit.
Commies want small government? Everything I suggest would get people off welfare and give the economy a boost.
Puh leeze. The claim that you want small government doesn't pass the laugh test. What you want is for government to decide how much private corporations pay their employees. How is that consistent with "small government?"
Again, either employers or the government provide for people. If you want small government it has to be the employer. As employers pay less and give less benefits the government grows. Haven't you noticed?
They are rich and collecting tons of corporate welfare. My taxes go to their employees.So what? It is still their money. So if none of them even hold a position with the company, why are you bitching about them? Oh yes they are rich and you are not.By all rights, it is still the kids money. Yes they were lucky but what of it?
I take it you want the inheritance tax to be 99% so there is no money to be passed down to the kids.
Watch out your envy is getting the best of you right now.
We are discussing if they earned it. I think they were just lucky. None of them even hold a position with the company, that isn't earning.
Simple solution: if you don't want them receiving tax money, then end the programs that entitle them to receive it.
And like I said, just ending them is political suicide and won't happen. Stop living in fantasy land.
They are rich and collecting tons of corporate welfare. My taxes go to their employees.So what? It is still their money. So if none of them even hold a position with the company, why are you bitching about them? Oh yes they are rich and you are not.By all rights, it is still the kids money. Yes they were lucky but what of it?
I take it you want the inheritance tax to be 99% so there is no money to be passed down to the kids.
Watch out your envy is getting the best of you right now.
We are discussing if they earned it. I think they were just lucky. None of them even hold a position with the company, that isn't earning.
Nope. Your taxes are going to people who are so stupid and incompetent that they can't make enough money to pay their bills. Not a dime of it goes to Wal-Mart.
Yes but walmart gets rich off their work, not me. Since they are getting rich they should be providing for them, not me.
Exactly. But if you close those loopholes, penalize companies that send American jobs overseas and reward those that keep the jobs here, the tax structure becomes more equitable.If you just exempted all corps with no strings the money would funnel to the rich.The majority of corporations do. Walmart is the outlier, which is why it attracts so much attention.
Then why not exempt all corporations from taxes. What do you imagine would happen then?
I'm sure you have data. I look forward to your posting it.
I would let companies pay zero if they create lots of jobs, pay well, and have good benefits and retirement. Everyone else obviously should pay.
Who cares what you would do?
Well you should because it would actually be good for the country. Your plan has been an epic failure.
