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.
The cost problem is that the richies do not pay their fair share along with bloated government, though the workforce is less than that of Bush's administration.
Reform entitlements, end the DOE, and cut DoD by 70% over ten years.
Did Starkey get banned for actually making a sensible post?
I agree with the bolded portion 100%. Now I feel dirty.
You agree with cutting defense 70%?!?
We'll basically be left with 100 soldiers each allowed to carry 4 bullets and a canteen of water....
How do you force indentured servants to work their jobs? Whips, chains, starvation, torture? Is that your plan to force us to pay for your welfare? Whips, chains, starvation, torture?
You are the one alleging that taxation equals slavery so the onus remains on you to tell us exactly how you are being "oppressed".
So you think people enjoy paying taxes? Do you enjoy it when a thief takes your money?
WOW! Got dyslexic!
Should have been
2012 - The last full year: Sales/Revenue 446.95B Income Tax 7.94B
WMT Annual Income Statement - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Annual Financials
WOW! Got dyslexic!
Should have been
2012 - The last full year: Sales/Revenue 446.95B Income Tax 7.94B
WMT Annual Income Statement - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Annual Financials
After cost of goods, salaries building casts etc, pretax income was 24.4B. 8 billion is 1/3 of that, isn't it?
In making an apples to apples comparison you have to use effective. Anything else would be deceptive.
WOW! Got dyslexic!
Should have been
2012 - The last full year: Sales/Revenue 446.95B Income Tax 7.94B
WMT Annual Income Statement - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Annual Financials
Revenue is not the same thing as income, bonehead. You don't calculate income tax based on revenue.
Revenue IS income.
Why act so stupid? Corp tax is not paid on revenue , in contrast to what you keep indicating. It is paid on income which is revenue minus expenses. So what if you can find a site that introduces the term net income? You are being obtuse. Your stupid post compared revenue to tax. It was a ridiculous statement.
Who's acting stupid? Certainly not me.
Did Starkey get banned for actually making a sensible post?
I agree with the bolded portion 100%. Now I feel dirty.
You agree with cutting defense 70%?!?
We'll basically be left with 100 soldiers each allowed to carry 4 bullets and a canteen of water....
Right... do you realize that after such a cut our military budget would still be twice that of China, our closest competition?
Ame®icano;8216026 said:Why act so stupid? Corp tax is not paid on revenue , in contrast to what you keep indicating. It is paid on income which is revenue minus expenses. So what if you can find a site that introduces the term net income? You are being obtuse. Your stupid post compared revenue to tax. It was a ridiculous statement.
Who's acting stupid? Certainly not me.
Oh yeah, you.
So you're saying that if I buy product from China for $10 and sell it for $15, I should pay tax on $15, because that was my revenue.
Easy on drugs bro...
Ame®icano;8215928 said:You are the one alleging that taxation equals slavery so the onus remains on you to tell us exactly how you are being "oppressed".
So you think people enjoy paying taxes? Do you enjoy it when a thief takes your money?
"It takes a thief" to answer that question.
Of course they can.
It is the guy that is making 20,000 per year that can't.
Did Starkey get banned for actually making a sensible post?
I agree with the bolded portion 100%. Now I feel dirty.
You agree with cutting defense 70%?!?
We'll basically be left with 100 soldiers each allowed to carry 4 bullets and a canteen of water....
Right... do you realize that after such a cut our military budget would still be twice that of China, our closest competition?
Of course they can.
It is the guy that is making 20,000 per year that can't.
The cost problem is that the richies do not pay their fair share along with bloated government, though the workforce is less than that of Bush's administration.
Reform entitlements, end the DOE, and cut DoD by 70% over ten years.
The cost problem is that the richies do not pay their fair share along with bloated government, though the workforce is less than that of Bush's administration.
Reform entitlements, end the DOE, and cut DoD by 70% over ten years.
Why cut defense by 70%? Do you know how big the military has to be to adequately defend us? If you don't, how do you know that 70% is justified? I will agree with any cuts to save money but only after it can be shown that such cuts will not render our military inadequate to the task.
You agree with cutting defense 70%?!?
We'll basically be left with 100 soldiers each allowed to carry 4 bullets and a canteen of water....
Right... do you realize that after such a cut our military budget would still be twice that of China, our closest competition?
Do you realize that that cutting our military budget by 70% would mean royally fucking over the men and woman who served this nation so that people like you can reward crack-whores and herion-addicts who have done nothing but help destroy this nation? We don't take care of them as it is and you want to cut them 70%?!?
When you cut welfare, medicaid, food stamps, and Obamacare by 100%, we can talk about cutting defense. Until that time, you sound like an absolute fuck'n moron proposing something so asinine.
The cost problem is that the richies do not pay their fair share along with bloated government, though the workforce is less than that of Bush's administration.
Reform entitlements, end the DOE, and cut DoD by 70% over ten years.
Why cut defense by 70%? Do you know how big the military has to be to adequately defend us? If you don't, how do you know that 70% is justified? I will agree with any cuts to save money but only after it can be shown that such cuts will not render our military inadequate to the task.
How about we bring them all home and set the goal to defend the country vs police the world.
When was the last time we used our military to defend us? WWII?Why cut defense by 70%? Do you know how big the military has to be to adequately defend us? If you don't, how do you know that 70% is justified? I will agree with any cuts to save money but only after it can be shown that such cuts will not render our military inadequate to the task.
How about we bring them all home and set the goal to defend the country vs police the world.
The merits of any particular military operation is beside the point. The issue here is that the purpose of the military is to defend us and it has to be big enough to do the job. You cannot determine the size of the military budget by asking the quesiton: How much money should we spend/save? You need to ask FIRST how big the military must be and ONLY then do you determine that you will not spend more than is necessary.
Of course they can.
It is the guy that is making 20,000 per year that can't.
10bucks an hour? I was making 10bucks an hour in high school in 1981. Why would someone expect to live on that?
Of course they can.
It is the guy that is making 20,000 per year that can't.
10bucks an hour? I was making 10bucks an hour in high school in 1981. Why would someone expect to live on that?
Was this Texas where a high schooler could make those kind of wages back then? These weren't bad wages in California for an adult in 1981 and I know from experience that Texas is a low wage state.
