How to Fix the Absurd U.S. Tax System

[ClosedCaption]

You're welcome

 

[Billy000]

Liberals will hate this because they don't want wealthy people to stay wealthy (unless they are Dems). We need to do something to save the middle class. Even if the far left wants to eliminate middle class, we know that our country can't survive without us.

How to Fix the Absurd U.S. Tax System
How to Fix the Absurd U.S. Tax System

Would it make a difference to you at all if I, as a liberal, assure you I don't want to get rid if the wealthy or the middle class? Or do you just believe whatever you want about liberals so you can feel superior about yourself?

And yet another one marked for future reference. Don't let Me catch you spouting off about republicans as if you know what they are about. This will be what you can term, your hypocrisy.

You need a life.

 

[Edgetho]

I know and people NEVER get off welfare once they are on it because the Dems wont let them...or something

We've got 4th generation welfare recipients out there. We've got people that are taught at a young age how to use the system.

You mean there are people who were on welfare BEFORE WELFARE? 80 years ago.

You're a quibbling bitch....

Sally gets on welfare at the age of 25 in 1965. She has two daughters, one is 15 in 1965.

Six months later, she's preggo and gets on welfare. We'll call her Nancy.

That's two generations before we even get out of 1965.

Nancy squirts out a kid (Dawn) in 1966 and 15 years later (1980) she gets preggo and gets on welfare.

By 1980, we've got 3 generations on welfare

In 1996, Dawn gets preggo and squirts out another one (Jawanda... Thank you, Roots).

That's a 4th generation welfare and we haven't even reached the 21st Century yet.

By 2012, Jawanda is packing a fetus and she gets on welfare. Squirts out another kid dependent on the State.

That's 5 generations up to 2012-13.

I was being kind using just 4 generations.

Sally, Nancy, Dawn, Jawanda and the new one... Flatulance' (pronounced like Beyonce') are all alive and on welfare. Sally is only 74. Five generations. Welfare.

And you're an idiot.

You think you're funny?

You're the only one that does

 

[Bombur]

We want people to exercise.

So what? This is my point in a nutshell. We shouldn't be using government, via taxes or otherwise, to arbitrarily force people to do something just because "we" want them to. Government should prevent that kind of bullying, not initiate it.

The issue you referenced was the about whether or not we should discourage exercise. I was against discouraging exercise.

Taxation of cigs is not force. It is an economic disincentive. Hyperbole doesn't help the conversation.

 

[hangover]

How to Fix the Absurd U.S. Tax System

The interest on the national debt is almost a trillion dollars a year. Raise taxes on the 1% and corporate business to 90% until it's paid off, and then everyone's taxes will be a trillion dollars less every year. It's the only way it's going to get paid off, because they are the ones that have all the money.

No doubt, the cons have no intention of fixing the national debt or the tax problem. It's just wah wah, fuck you me first, and blame the liberals.

 

[ClosedCaption]

We've got 4th generation welfare recipients out there. We've got people that are taught at a young age how to use the system.

You mean there are people who were on welfare BEFORE WELFARE? 80 years ago.

You're a quibbling bitch....

Sally gets on welfare at the age of 25 in 1965. She has two daughters, one is 15 in 1965.

Old Once upon a time ass bitch

Nice fiction there buddy...Way to make up even more bullshit in order to make your "logic" fit.

Heres the problem. When you have to make up characters and a storyline...then

 

[Wildman]

Libs hate it because they want to use taxes to punish rich people. They don't care if the rates make sense or bring in more revenue. As long as it punishes high income earners they're fine. Obama said so himself.

correction please: Libs hate it because they want to use taxes to punish rich Republicans and Conservatives.

they also do not want it known that out of the top 10 richest "law makers", 8 of them are demoncRATS. yet all these fucking liarberals keep screaming "tax the rich"

 

[dblack]

We want people to exercise.

So what? This is my point in a nutshell. We shouldn't be using government, via taxes or otherwise, to arbitrarily force people to do something just because "we" want them to. Government should prevent that kind of bullying, not initiate it.

The issue you referenced was the about whether or not we should discourage exercise. I was against discouraging exercise.

No, the issue is whether or not we should use government to do so.

Taxation of cigs is not force. It is an economic disincentive. Hyperbole doesn't help the conversation.

No, it's most definitely force. Our failure to recognize that is allowing corrosive taxation policy to persist and create corporatist goverment.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Libs hate it because they want to use taxes to punish rich people. They don't care if the rates make sense or bring in more revenue. As long as it punishes high income earners they're fine. Obama said so himself.

correction please: Libs hate it because they want to use taxes to punish rich Republicans and Conservatives.

they also do not want it known that out of the top 10 richest "law makers", 8 of them are demoncRATS. yet all these fucking liarberals keep screaming "tax the rich"

Now you're confused how your conservadaddies have been telling you that Dems hate the rich and you find out that the Dems ARE THE RICH

AND they want to raise Taxes on THEMSELVES.

Your brain just went: Boom!

You dont understand how the Rich Dems can scream tax the rich and they ARE THE RICH?

Maybe because the future of the US is kinda more important than 2% more in taxes.

 

[The Rabbi]

Libs hate it because they want to use taxes to punish rich people. They don't care if the rates make sense or bring in more revenue. As long as it punishes high income earners they're fine. Obama said so himself.

correction please: Libs hate it because they want to use taxes to punish rich Republicans and Conservatives.

they also do not want it known that out of the top 10 richest "law makers", 8 of them are demoncRATS. yet all these fucking liarberals keep screaming "tax the rich"

Now you're confused how your conservadaddies have been telling you that Dems hate the rich and you find out that the Dems ARE THE RICH

AND they want to raise Taxes on THEMSELVES.

Your brain just went: Boom!

You dont understand how the Rich Dems can scream tax the rich and they ARE THE RICH?

Maybe because the future of the US is kinda more important than 2% more in taxes.

Yes or No: Was Michael Jackson rich when he died?

 

[Bombur]

So what? This is my point in a nutshell. We shouldn't be using government, via taxes or otherwise, to arbitrarily force people to do something just because "we" want them to. Government should prevent that kind of bullying, not initiate it.

The issue you referenced was the about whether or not we should discourage exercise. I was against discouraging exercise.

No, the issue is whether or not we should use government to do so.

Taxation of cigs is not force. It is an economic disincentive. Hyperbole doesn't help the conversation.

No, it's most definitely force. Our failure to recognize that is allowing corrosive taxation policy to persist and create corporatist goverment.

So you agree with me that government shouldn't discourage exercise. Got it.

Why do you bother saying "corporatist government" instead of fascism when you really mean fascism? If you are going to resort to ridiculous arguments at least be open about it.

 

[dblack]

The issue you referenced was the about whether or not we should discourage exercise. I was against discouraging exercise.

No, the issue is whether or not we should use government to do so.

Taxation of cigs is not force. It is an economic disincentive. Hyperbole doesn't help the conversation.

No, it's most definitely force. Our failure to recognize that is allowing corrosive taxation policy to persist and create corporatist goverment.

So you agree with me that government shouldn't discourage exercise. Got it.

I sort of doubt it. I'm saying government shouldn't be in the business of 'encouraging' or 'discouraging' anything. Do you really think people can't figure this stuff out for themselves?

Why do you bother saying "corporatist government" instead of fascism when you really mean fascism? If you are going to resort to ridiculous arguments at least be open about it.

'Corporatist' is the most accurate term, in my view, for where things are currently. Feel free to use 'fascism' if you prefer, but the term has been stripped of most meaning by it's popular usage. You should look up corporatism. Do some reading.

 

[Bombur]

No, the issue is whether or not we should use government to do so.



No, it's most definitely force. Our failure to recognize that is allowing corrosive taxation policy to persist and create corporatist goverment.

So you agree with me that government shouldn't discourage exercise. Got it.

I sort of doubt it. I'm saying government shouldn't be in the business of 'encouraging' or 'discouraging' anything. Do you really think people can't figure this stuff out for themselves?

Why do you bother saying "corporatist government" instead of fascism when you really mean fascism? If you are going to resort to ridiculous arguments at least be open about it.

'Corporatist' is the most accurate term, in my view, for where things are currently. Feel free to use 'fascism' if you prefer, but the term has been stripped of most meaning by it's popular usage. You should look up corporatism. Do some reading.

Taxation by definition is a discouragement. A lot of the encouragement the government may do is to exempt an activity from a tax in an effort to not discourage it.

There is also intentional discouragement like the cig tax.

I have no problem with either at a theoretical level. No single approach is perfect and each issue should be considered on its own merits.

Your use of the term "corporatist" is just an attempt to use words with a negative connotation to appeal to emotions as opposed to logically arguing for your side. You base your opinion on an ideological belief in how the government SHOULD work in your mind. Any analysis you do is rather straight forward and based on a moral priority that is self supporting. ie once you establish it as the moral belief that moral belief is justified by the moral belief itself.

 

[dblack]

So you agree with me that government shouldn't discourage exercise. Got it.

I sort of doubt it. I'm saying government shouldn't be in the business of 'encouraging' or 'discouraging' anything. Do you really think people can't figure this stuff out for themselves?

Why do you bother saying "corporatist government" instead of fascism when you really mean fascism? If you are going to resort to ridiculous arguments at least be open about it.

'Corporatist' is the most accurate term, in my view, for where things are currently. Feel free to use 'fascism' if you prefer, but the term has been stripped of most meaning by it's popular usage. You should look up corporatism. Do some reading.

Taxation by definition is a discouragement.

No, it's not. That might be a side effect. But, by definition, the purpose of taxation is to fund government. Not to encourage or discourage behavior.

Your use of the term "corporatist" is just an attempt to use words with a negative connotation to appeal to emotions as opposed to logically arguing for your side.

No, it's not. It's an attempt to get idiots like you to realize where your delusions are leading us. Corporatism is a dangerous shift in political ideology that does away with equal protection and replaces it with class privilege. Have you even bothered to read about it?
Corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It might help you discuss it more intelligently, rather than just deflecting.

 

[Bombur]

I sort of doubt it. I'm saying government shouldn't be in the business of 'encouraging' or 'discouraging' anything. Do you really think people can't figure this stuff out for themselves?


'Corporatist' is the most accurate term, in my view, for where things are currently. Feel free to use 'fascism' if you prefer, but the term has been stripped of most meaning by it's popular usage. You should look up corporatism. Do some reading.

Taxation by definition is a discouragement.

No, it's not. That might be a side effect. But, by definition, the purpose of taxation is to fund government. Not to encourage or discourage behavior.

Your use of the term "corporatist" is just an attempt to use words with a negative connotation to appeal to emotions as opposed to logically arguing for your side.

No, it's not. It's an attempt to get idiots like you to realize where your delusion are leading us. Corporatism is a dangerous shift in political ideology that does away with equal protection and replaces it with class privilege. Have you even bothered to read about it?
Corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It might help you discuss it more intelligently, rather than just deflecting.

I didn't say the purpose was discouragement.

You just confirmed my point about you using the term corporatism. Thanks.

You are not making an argument that has a foundation in reality but is founded in your own ideological ideals. I am sorry but I have no problem with states discouraging cig sales by having high taxes on them. I would determine my position on that issue based on both the product and the tax in question. I would not determine my position based on a preconceived moral belief that is blind to the real world impact of the law.

Moral beliefs that are not informed by reality are far more dangerous than ones that are.

 

[dblack]

So, "nuthin"?

 

[Bombur]

So, "nuthin"?

Your argument is circular and ignores reality. There is only so much to say about it.

 

[hangover]

Jimmy Kimmel did his show in Austin Tx. last week. He had Rick Perry on, and Perry said he was in favor of legalizing pot. The cons are starting to realize, that they can tax the hippies, and then they can continue to give the rich and corporate business a free ride.

 

[The Rabbi]

Jimmy Kimmel did his show in Austin Tx. last week. He had Rick Perry on, and Perry said he was in favor of legalizing pot. The cons are starting to realize, that they can tax the hippies, and then they can continue to give the rich and corporate business a free ride.

Obama has handed out more money to rich people and corporations than anyone else probably in history. Is he a "con"? Well OK he is a con, like "confidence man" but nto like conservative.