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.
On the contrary - there are all kinds of things to tax them on:Huh? If they collectively own 2.5% of the total wealth there is practically nothing left to tax them on. You don't make any sense.False. You can tax them on any number of things.Well when 50% of the population owns 2.5% of the overall wealth of the country, there is NOTHING to tax those people on.
Income. Property. Purchases.
On the contrary - there are all kinds of things to tax them on:Huh? If they collectively own 2.5% of the total wealth there is practically nothing left to tax them on. You don't make any sense.False. You can tax them on any number of things.
Income. Property. Purchases.
Their income.
Their property.
The things that they buy.
I ran this past my 5-yr old daughter. It made sense to her. Not sure what -your- issue is in that regard.
50% of the people in the US don't have income?What income? What property?...How do you tax them on something that they don't have?On the contrary - there are all kinds of things to tax them on:Huh? If they collectively own 2.5% of the total wealth there is practically nothing left to tax them on. You don't make any sense.
Their income.
Their property.
The things that they buy.
I ran this past my 5-yr old daughter. It made sense to her. Not sure what -your- issue is in that regard.
Well, I figured that since I was talking with one, I'd look to her for reference.I'm not surprised you're consulting a 5 year old on this, that does explain a lot.
50% of the people in the US don't have income?What income? What property?...How do you tax them on something that they don't have?On the contrary - there are all kinds of things to tax them on:
Their income.
Their property.
The things that they buy.
I ran this past my 5-yr old daughter. It made sense to her. Not sure what -your- issue is in that regard.
50% of the people in the US don't have property?
Show this to be true.
You said:Seriously? What part about they COLLECTIVELY own 2.5% of the wealth are you not grasping?50% of the people in the US don't have income?What income? What property?...How do you tax them on something that they don't have?
50% of the people in the US don't have property?
Show this to be true.
I rsesponded:What income? What property?...How do you tax them on something that they don't have?
Get busy showing those things to be true - else my statements stand.50% of the people in the US don't have income?
50% of the people in the US don't have property?
Show this to be true.
You said:Seriously? What part about they COLLECTIVELY own 2.5% of the wealth are you not grasping?50% of the people in the US don't have income?
50% of the people in the US don't have property?
Show this to be true.
I rsesponded:What income? What property?...How do you tax them on something that they don't have?
Get busy showing those things to be true - else my statements stand.50% of the people in the US don't have income?
50% of the people in the US don't have property?
Show this to be true.
I clicked on a bunch of them, and they all suffered from the same lack of definitions. The term "wealth" is not unambiguous and I shouldn't have to figure out how they are defining it, they should tell me. I'm a six sigma black belt, a math major, and an MBA and when you present charts you define your terms, something they consistently failed to do. When that happens and you see numbers and they start drawing specific conclusions from them with no definition of what was measured much less how it was measured, two terms pop in to a critical mind:LOL, you clicked the first graph only and decided to eliminate ALL the other charts based upon what you deem to be insufficient data size in a single graph that still supports my point. How lazy are you? Pick another graph in the results if you don't like the dataset in the first graph....there are plenty to choose from that support what I said. Pathetic.
1) agenda
2) BS
Lazy is not caring what they meant by "wealth" and just getting off because the conclusions drawn served your political agenda
So you're an outright liar too? Because if you spent 10 minutes looking for how they defined "wealth" you would have found it but you're too stubborn to actually look
I'll do your legwork AGAIN
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/papers/concentration.2001.10.pdf
http://www.clms.neu.edu/publication/documents/Wealth_in_America.pdf
Those are just two of the studies that you could have easily found if you weren't completely lazy that clearly establish how they define wealth. No, instead you felt the need to inform me how smart you are. LOL.
Feel free to post anything that proves me wrong with data that you feel is sufficiently qualified. I'd LOVE to see it.
Neither of these sources show that:You said:Seriously? What part about they COLLECTIVELY own 2.5% of the wealth are you not grasping?
I rsesponded:
Get busy showing those things to be true - else my statements stand.50% of the people in the US don't have income?
50% of the people in the US don't have property?
Show this to be true.
And I've already done that, but I'll repost for you. You're welcome.
http://www.clms.neu.edu/publication/documents/Wealth_in_America.pdf
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/papers/concentration.2001.10.pdf
I'll wait for your insightful response.
Neither of these sources show that:You said:
I rsesponded:
Get busy showing those things to be true - else my statements stand.
And I've already done that, but I'll repost for you. You're welcome.
http://www.clms.neu.edu/publication/documents/Wealth_in_America.pdf
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/papers/concentration.2001.10.pdf
I'll wait for your insightful response.
-50% of the people in the US have no income.
-50% of the people in the US have no property
My statement thus stands.
Let me know when you have something to refute it.
I'm really confused by the article and the OP.
Who has ever argued that it is unconstitutional for Congress to levy taxes?
You're simply avoiding the point, that neither source supports the assertion that:LOL, you went through both documents in 8 minutes? Now you're just a liar. At least be honest and tell me you don't want to read what I posted. Pathetic.Neither of these sources show that:And I've already done that, but I'll repost for you. You're welcome.
http://www.clms.neu.edu/publication/documents/Wealth_in_America.pdf
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/papers/concentration.2001.10.pdf
I'll wait for your insightful response.
-50% of the people in the US have no income.
-50% of the people in the US have no property
My statement thus stands.
Let me know when you have something to refute it.
You're simply avoiding the point, that neither source supports the assertion that:LOL, you went through both documents in 8 minutes? Now you're just a liar. At least be honest and tell me you don't want to read what I posted. Pathetic.Neither of these sources show that:
-50% of the people in the US have no income.
-50% of the people in the US have no property
My statement thus stands.
Let me know when you have something to refute it.
-50% of the people in the US have no income
-50% of the people in the US have no property
So, again, my statement stands.
Let me know when you have something to refute it.
You then said that you cannot tax the income or property of this 50% of the people because they have no income and no property.First of all, those two statements were made by you twisting what I said which was that 50% of the population owns 2.5% of the total wealth.You're simply avoiding the point, that neither source supports the assertion that:LOL, you went through both documents in 8 minutes? Now you're just a liar. At least be honest and tell me you don't want to read what I posted. Pathetic.
-50% of the people in the US have no income
-50% of the people in the US have no property
So, again, my statement stands.
Let me know when you have something to refute it.
This in no way means that they have no income and no property.That is fully explained and shown in what I posted. In fact the bottom 25% of the country has a negative net worth.
You then said that you cannot tax the income or property of this 50% of the people because they have no income and no property.First of all, those two statements were made by you twisting what I said which was that 50% of the population owns 2.5% of the total wealth.You're simply avoiding the point, that neither source supports the assertion that:
-50% of the people in the US have no income
-50% of the people in the US have no property
So, again, my statement stands.
Let me know when you have something to refute it.
You have failed thus far to support your assertion, that they have no income or property.
This in no way means that they have no income and no property.That is fully explained and shown in what I posted. In fact the bottom 25% of the country has a negative net worth.
So, again, my statement stands.
Let me know when you have something to refute it.
Who's talking about sales tax? What does that have to do with wealth?You have also completely avoided the issue of taxing their purchases.
Let me guess - they don't buy anything?
No...I said they had very little wealth (2.5% to be exact) among a large portion (50% to be exact) of the population. Average that little amount of wealth over a large portion of the population and you get very little wealth per person...next to nothing. Especially compared to what the upper 10% own. You can continue to be stubborn, be a concrete-thinker, but I've proven more then enough evidence to support what I said.You then said that you cannot tax the income or property of this 50% of the people because they have no income and no property.First of all, those two statements were made by you twisting what I said which was that 50% of the population owns 2.5% of the total wealth.
You have failed thus far to support your assertion, that they have no income or property.
This in no way means that they have no income and no property.
So, again, my statement stands.
Let me know when you have something to refute it.
I was, when I contered your statement that there is nothing to tax that 50% on.Who's talking about sales tax?
My statement was that 50% of the people possess 2.5% of the wealth in this country. Do you wish to dispute this?No...I said they had very little wealth (2.5% to be exact) among a large portion (50% to be exact) of the population. Average that little amount of wealth over a large portion of the population and you get very little wealth per person...next to nothing. Especially compared to what the upper 10% own. You can continue to be stubborn, be a concrete-thinker, but I've proven more then enough evidence to support what I said.You then said that you cannot tax the income or property of this 50% of the people because they have no income and no property.
You have failed thus far to support your assertion, that they have no income or property.
This in no way means that they have no income and no property.
So, again, my statement stands.
Let me know when you have something to refute it.
You said they could not be taxed - "there is nothing to tax them on"
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...s-constitutional-principle-6.html#post3406212
I said you could tax their income and their property and their purchases.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...s-constitutional-principle-7.html#post3409171
You then said they had no income or property TO tax - "how can you tax them on something they do not have"?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...s-constitutional-principle-7.html#post3409200
Nothing you have posted so far backs up the assertion that they have no income and no property.
And thus, my assertion that there IS something to tax them on - their income and their property and their purchases - stands.
I was, when I contered your statement that there is nothing to tax that 50% on.Who's talking about sales tax?
Pay attention.
The quotes I supplied and the links to them list exactly what your statements were, and my replies to them.My statement was that 50% of the people possess 2.5% of the wealth in this country. Do you wish to dispute this?No...I said they had very little wealth (2.5% to be exact) among a large portion (50% to be exact) of the population. Average that little amount of wealth over a large portion of the population and you get very little wealth per person...next to nothing. Especially compared to what the upper 10% own. You can continue to be stubborn, be a concrete-thinker, but I've proven more then enough evidence to support what I said.
You said they could not be taxed - "there is nothing to tax them on"
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...s-constitutional-principle-6.html#post3406212
I said you could tax their income and their property and their purchases.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...s-constitutional-principle-7.html#post3409171
You then said they had no income or property TO tax - "how can you tax them on something they do not have"?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...s-constitutional-principle-7.html#post3409200
Nothing you have posted so far backs up the assertion that they have no income and no property.
And thus, my assertion that there IS something to tax them on - their income and their property and their purchases - stands.
I was, when I contered your statement that there is nothing to tax that 50% on.Who's talking about sales tax?
Pay attention.
The quotes I supplied and the links to them list exactly what your statements were, and my replies to them.My statement was that 50% of the people possess 2.5% of the wealth in this country. Do you wish to dispute this?No...
You said they could not be taxed - "there is nothing to tax them on"
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...s-constitutional-principle-6.html#post3406212
I said you could tax their income and their property and their purchases.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...s-constitutional-principle-7.html#post3409171
You then said they had no income or property TO tax - "how can you tax them on something they do not have"?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...s-constitutional-principle-7.html#post3409200
Nothing you have posted so far backs up the assertion that they have no income and no property.
And thus, my assertion that there IS something to tax them on - their income and their property and their purchases - stands.
I was, when I contered your statement that there is nothing to tax that 50% on.
Pay attention.
My assertion that you CAN tax that 50% stands, uncountered and undaunted.
You stated that you could not tax the people in that 50%.Forget it. Someone that think that sales tax has anything to do with wealth or this conversation is someone who is just not a smart person. Simple as that.The quotes I supplied and the links to them list exactly what your statements were, and my replies to them.My statement was that 50% of the people possess 2.5% of the wealth in this country. Do you wish to dispute this?
My assertion that you CAN tax that 50% stands, uncountered and undaunted.
