OK, I'll admit it, our friends on the left are correct; there IS a catch to the Trump tax cuts

[francoHFW]

At one time I thought these people like Nat or Guno were just posting hogwash to fan flames? It appears some of these posters believe their spew? They may even be right on some issues? But you cannot be sure, buried in the Hate and attacks?

America, love it ir leave it........they used to say.

Right-wing s*** heads used to... And still do as if it's an argument. Dumbasses

 

[bgrouse]

Read your own definition. It says usually. Otherwise it just refers to a gain or recurrent benefit in general. And what is a gain?

resources or advantage acquired or increased

Wealth/money is a resource and/or an advantage. And yes, when they get the inheritance, they acquire it.

If your father hands you $10,000 in cash, would you report it to the government as income? I didn't think so.

What kind of American are you that thinks the government is more deserving of ones wealth after he or she dies than the family? You ask what the kids did to earn that money, and I ask you what government did to earn that money?

What exchanges happen within the family are family matters--not government matters. Perhaps you want government sitting at your dinner table, and when you pass the biscuits to your daughter, government is there to take their few biscuits first before they pass the plate to your daughter. It's ridiculous.

People work hard to try and make their children's life better than theirs. They didn't go to work every day, take risks, only to hand their hard work over to government.

And learn how to read. The definition is usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor. I even highlighted the important part of the definition.

Do you know what usually means? It means it's usually from capital or labor, but can be from other things. The bottom line is income is income. Inheritance is income that is currently excused from taxation. If I were a rich deadbeat, of course I'd report it. The risk is too great and I'd still be a millionaire deadbeat afterwards, just with a few less million. I didn't have to work for any of it anyway. You can whine all you want to protect your rich deadbeat heroes, but you're basically a clown grasping at straws, especially with your "Do you understand the term INCOME TAX? It means tax on income." crap and your inability to read and comprehend a basic English sentence.

Governments will always control the money that THEY create and enforce. If you think it's none of their business, then the rich should be barred from using the government for enforcing their property rights. So if someone kills them to steal their money, the government should just ignore them. After all, you say it's none of the government's business. That wasn't Trump's tune when he was getting bankruptcy protection from the government!

Yes, it says usually measured in money--not usually measured from capital or labor. It's always measured in capital and labor. Usually measured in money means it could be from stock options given to a CEO or perhaps in profit sharing.

That's not how the sentence is written. The sentence says it's a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor. For usually to apply only to money and not to capital or labor, the sentence would have to be written with the following commas:
a gain or recurrent benefit, usually measured in money, that derives from capital or labor

Those commas are not there, so you are wrong.

The government doesn't create money--it only creates the notes that represent wealth. Wealth is created by the individual which gives currency it's value. Without people giving those notes value, they are nothing more than worthless pieces of paper.

The government is what controls the money supply and enforces property rights. Without that, you'd see any wealth associated with the money go down the toilet.

So now somebody dies in your family and leaves you with a 300K house. Should government force you to give them 100K in order to keep that house?

It should be taxed, yes.

Thank you for admitting that Comrade. All property should belong to the government.

You're an illiterate moron, which is why you keep attributing comments I never made to me. For example, here you imply that I said all (100%) of property should belong to the government, when all I said was it should be taxed (in response to a 33% tax question).

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And again, why does it make a difference?

PAPAGEORGIO said Trump got rich working. This is false. I was explaining that to him.

Inherit and work to keep. Again why would anyone but a bigot care?

Is that what republicans mean when they tell people to pull themselves up by the bootstraps? "Work" by not partying and blowing your $10-20 million you inherited? No wonder it doesn't work.

Blowing 10-20 million, puts 10-20 million back into the economy and creates a demand which in turn puts people to work, which means it is taxed. It is a natural way of income redistribution, not forced as the government does. So it is all good. If everyone who inherited their money did this, the economy would be better.

I really don’t care how other people spend their money or if they inherited their money, it isn’t my business and I have more important things to worry about than whether you worked for your wealth or inherited your wealth.

They could get the money back into the economy by taxing the inheritance. Then they wouldn't have to worry about wasting goods and services on some good-for-nothing lazy rich deadbeat.

So fucking what?
that's the point of money, to leave it to your kids....what planet do you live on?

The point is he didn't get rich working. Do you understand or do you need me to hold your hand and point out the important lines in the posts?

since when do you guys care about working?
Second, why cant rich people leave money to their kids?

They can, but it should be taxed like regular income at the very least.

and third he increased his wealth by quite a bit working, so it's not like he took the money from daddy and then blew it on hookers and coke.

Why can't everyone else pull themselves up by their bootstraps and "work" by investing their spare $10-20 million they have laying around?

That's exactly what I believe. Government may print the money, but they didn't create the wealth it represents.

Sorry......but you didn't build that.

But the lazy rich kid who inherited the money did?

wow are you on crack? or do you just like to deny reality to keep your bubble up?

The reality is that inheriting something is not "work."

And again, why does it make a difference?

PAPAGEORGIO said Trump got rich working. This is false. I was explaining that to him.

Inherit and work to keep. Again why would anyone but a bigot care?

Is that what republicans mean when they tell people to pull themselves up by the bootstraps? "Work" by not partying and blowing your $10-20 million you inherited? No wonder it doesn't work.

OK, he got richer working......he had money and did something with it...why are you such a hater of that......
was your dad rich and you tossed it down the toilet?

Yeah, he put it somewhere for it to become more money. Investments are not "work" kind of like the lottery is not work.

They could get the money back into the economy by taxing the inheritance.

Inherited money is "outside of the economy"?

Ask PAPAGEORGIO. He said "Blowing 10-20 million, puts 10-20 million back into the economy."

Changing your story already?

 

[francoHFW]

I said Trump got rich via inheritance / getting money from his parents.

Your delusions, on the other hand, are your delusions and your delusions alone.

That is a bald-faced lie, and you know it, or else you would not be arguing so hard to justify your lie!

Quit pussyfooting and dodging, you cowardly turd! Put up or shut up.

What's a lie?

Trump didn't inherit or otherwise receive any considerable amount of money from his parents? Is that what you're saying? This requires a "yes" or "no" answer.

Why are you so insistent he answer you? You know all you will do is lie more, no matter what he says. You will lie. Just like the sun coming up, it's guaranteed.

Because he keeps calling me a liar. I want him to back it up because I know he's full of shit, just like you.

You are a liar. You claimed Trump's wealth came from his inheritance, which is a bald-faced lie. End of story. Suck it up, buttercup! You lied and got caught.

Of course it did... Also his good credit... And then he got loans at too high an interest and lost it all. Then he sold his name and became reality star.

 

[bgrouse]

I said Trump got rich via inheritance / getting money from his parents.

Your delusions, on the other hand, are your delusions and your delusions alone.

That is a bald-faced lie, and you know it, or else you would not be arguing so hard to justify your lie!

Quit pussyfooting and dodging, you cowardly turd! Put up or shut up.

What's a lie?

Trump didn't inherit or otherwise receive any considerable amount of money from his parents? Is that what you're saying? This requires a "yes" or "no" answer.

You first. Answer the question.

He got a loan. He has other brothers and sisters you know. They would have shared in their inheritance. How many of them became billionaires?

How the fuck should I know? Did I ever make any claim related to that regarding Trump's brothers and sisters? I'm asking someone to back up something they said. You're asking me to back up/explain something I didn't say.

You claimed he got rich because of inheritance, did you not?

That was a lie. He was already rich before his father and mother died. You are a liar. Admit it. You post things that you know for certain are not true. .

I said he got it from his dad, one way or another.

He inherited it, stupid. He may have also received some as a gift prior to his father's death.

That was, oh, over 100-200 posts back. See, it's that problem rearing its ugly head again: your illiteracy.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If your father hands you $10,000 in cash, would you report it to the government as income? I didn't think so.

What kind of American are you that thinks the government is more deserving of ones wealth after he or she dies than the family? You ask what the kids did to earn that money, and I ask you what government did to earn that money?

What exchanges happen within the family are family matters--not government matters. Perhaps you want government sitting at your dinner table, and when you pass the biscuits to your daughter, government is there to take their few biscuits first before they pass the plate to your daughter. It's ridiculous.

People work hard to try and make their children's life better than theirs. They didn't go to work every day, take risks, only to hand their hard work over to government.

And learn how to read. The definition is usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor. I even highlighted the important part of the definition.

Do you know what usually means? It means it's usually from capital or labor, but can be from other things. The bottom line is income is income. Inheritance is income that is currently excused from taxation. If I were a rich deadbeat, of course I'd report it. The risk is too great and I'd still be a millionaire deadbeat afterwards, just with a few less million. I didn't have to work for any of it anyway. You can whine all you want to protect your rich deadbeat heroes, but you're basically a clown grasping at straws, especially with your "Do you understand the term INCOME TAX? It means tax on income." crap and your inability to read and comprehend a basic English sentence.

Governments will always control the money that THEY create and enforce. If you think it's none of their business, then the rich should be barred from using the government for enforcing their property rights. So if someone kills them to steal their money, the government should just ignore them. After all, you say it's none of the government's business. That wasn't Trump's tune when he was getting bankruptcy protection from the government!

Yes, it says usually measured in money--not usually measured from capital or labor. It's always measured in capital and labor. Usually measured in money means it could be from stock options given to a CEO or perhaps in profit sharing.

That's not how the sentence is written. The sentence says it's a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor. For usually to apply only to money and not to capital or labor, the sentence would have to be written with the following commas:
a gain or recurrent benefit, usually measured in money, that derives from capital or labor

Those commas are not there, so you are wrong.

The government doesn't create money--it only creates the notes that represent wealth. Wealth is created by the individual which gives currency it's value. Without people giving those notes value, they are nothing more than worthless pieces of paper.

The government is what controls the money supply and enforces property rights. Without that, you'd see any wealth associated with the money go down the toilet.

So now somebody dies in your family and leaves you with a 300K house. Should government force you to give them 100K in order to keep that house?

It should be taxed, yes.

Thank you for admitting that Comrade. All property should belong to the government.

You're an illiterate moron, which is why you keep attributing comments I never made to me. For example, here you imply that I said all (100%) of property should belong to the government, when all I said was it should be taxed (in response to a 33% tax question).

No, I just pulled on you what you have been doing this entire thread. Now, do you see the hypocrisy?

You can? Then retract your previous lies and I will retract this statement, you freaking Communist!

 

[bgrouse]

PAPAGEORGIO said Trump got rich working. This is false. I was explaining that to him.Is that what republicans mean when they tell people to pull themselves up by the bootstraps? "Work" by not partying and blowing your $10-20 million you inherited? No wonder it doesn't work.

Blowing 10-20 million, puts 10-20 million back into the economy and creates a demand which in turn puts people to work, which means it is taxed. It is a natural way of income redistribution, not forced as the government does. So it is all good. If everyone who inherited their money did this, the economy would be better.

I really don’t care how other people spend their money or if they inherited their money, it isn’t my business and I have more important things to worry about than whether you worked for your wealth or inherited your wealth.

They could get the money back into the economy by taxing the inheritance. Then they wouldn't have to worry about wasting goods and services on some good-for-nothing lazy rich deadbeat.

The point is he didn't get rich working. Do you understand or do you need me to hold your hand and point out the important lines in the posts?

since when do you guys care about working?
Second, why cant rich people leave money to their kids?

They can, but it should be taxed like regular income at the very least.

and third he increased his wealth by quite a bit working, so it's not like he took the money from daddy and then blew it on hookers and coke.

Why can't everyone else pull themselves up by their bootstraps and "work" by investing their spare $10-20 million they have laying around?

But the lazy rich kid who inherited the money did?

wow are you on crack? or do you just like to deny reality to keep your bubble up?

The reality is that inheriting something is not "work."

PAPAGEORGIO said Trump got rich working. This is false. I was explaining that to him.Is that what republicans mean when they tell people to pull themselves up by the bootstraps? "Work" by not partying and blowing your $10-20 million you inherited? No wonder it doesn't work.

OK, he got richer working......he had money and did something with it...why are you such a hater of that......
was your dad rich and you tossed it down the toilet?

Yeah, he put it somewhere for it to become more money. Investments are not "work" kind of like the lottery is not work.

They could get the money back into the economy by taxing the inheritance.

Inherited money is "outside of the economy"?

Ask PAPAGEORGIO. He said "Blowing 10-20 million, puts 10-20 million back into the economy."

Changing your story already?

Ask PAPAGEORGIO. It's his story, stupid.

 

[bgrouse]

Do you know what usually means? It means it's usually from capital or labor, but can be from other things. The bottom line is income is income. Inheritance is income that is currently excused from taxation. If I were a rich deadbeat, of course I'd report it. The risk is too great and I'd still be a millionaire deadbeat afterwards, just with a few less million. I didn't have to work for any of it anyway. You can whine all you want to protect your rich deadbeat heroes, but you're basically a clown grasping at straws, especially with your "Do you understand the term INCOME TAX? It means tax on income." crap and your inability to read and comprehend a basic English sentence.

Governments will always control the money that THEY create and enforce. If you think it's none of their business, then the rich should be barred from using the government for enforcing their property rights. So if someone kills them to steal their money, the government should just ignore them. After all, you say it's none of the government's business. That wasn't Trump's tune when he was getting bankruptcy protection from the government!

Yes, it says usually measured in money--not usually measured from capital or labor. It's always measured in capital and labor. Usually measured in money means it could be from stock options given to a CEO or perhaps in profit sharing.

That's not how the sentence is written. The sentence says it's a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor. For usually to apply only to money and not to capital or labor, the sentence would have to be written with the following commas:
a gain or recurrent benefit, usually measured in money, that derives from capital or labor

Those commas are not there, so you are wrong.

The government doesn't create money--it only creates the notes that represent wealth. Wealth is created by the individual which gives currency it's value. Without people giving those notes value, they are nothing more than worthless pieces of paper.

The government is what controls the money supply and enforces property rights. Without that, you'd see any wealth associated with the money go down the toilet.

So now somebody dies in your family and leaves you with a 300K house. Should government force you to give them 100K in order to keep that house?

It should be taxed, yes.

Thank you for admitting that Comrade. All property should belong to the government.

You're an illiterate moron, which is why you keep attributing comments I never made to me. For example, here you imply that I said all (100%) of property should belong to the government, when all I said was it should be taxed (in response to a 33% tax question).

No, I just pulled on you what you have been doing this entire thread. Now, do you see the hypocrisy?

You can? Then retract your previous lies and I will retract this statement, you freaking Communist!

I see that you're an illiterate fool and one who comes up with laughably terrible excuses to try and cover that fact up.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That is a bald-faced lie, and you know it, or else you would not be arguing so hard to justify your lie!

Quit pussyfooting and dodging, you cowardly turd! Put up or shut up.

What's a lie?

Trump didn't inherit or otherwise receive any considerable amount of money from his parents? Is that what you're saying? This requires a "yes" or "no" answer.

You first. Answer the question.

He got a loan. He has other brothers and sisters you know. They would have shared in their inheritance. How many of them became billionaires?

How the fuck should I know? Did I ever make any claim related to that regarding Trump's brothers and sisters? I'm asking someone to back up something they said. You're asking me to back up/explain something I didn't say.

You claimed he got rich because of inheritance, did you not?

That was a lie. He was already rich before his father and mother died. You are a liar. Admit it. You post things that you know for certain are not true. .

I said he got it from his dad, one way or another.

He inherited it, stupid. He may have also received some as a gift prior to his father's death.

That was, oh, over 100-200 posts back. See, it's that problem rearing its ugly head again: your illiteracy.

Apparently you can neither read nor write only when it suits you.

Post a link to your claim. You won't, because if you did post a link, you won't be back! You will turn tail and run like the lying coward you appear to be.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Blowing 10-20 million, puts 10-20 million back into the economy and creates a demand which in turn puts people to work, which means it is taxed. It is a natural way of income redistribution, not forced as the government does. So it is all good. If everyone who inherited their money did this, the economy would be better.

I really don’t care how other people spend their money or if they inherited their money, it isn’t my business and I have more important things to worry about than whether you worked for your wealth or inherited your wealth.

They could get the money back into the economy by taxing the inheritance. Then they wouldn't have to worry about wasting goods and services on some good-for-nothing lazy rich deadbeat.

since when do you guys care about working?
Second, why cant rich people leave money to their kids?

They can, but it should be taxed like regular income at the very least.

and third he increased his wealth by quite a bit working, so it's not like he took the money from daddy and then blew it on hookers and coke.

Why can't everyone else pull themselves up by their bootstraps and "work" by investing their spare $10-20 million they have laying around?

wow are you on crack? or do you just like to deny reality to keep your bubble up?

The reality is that inheriting something is not "work."

OK, he got richer working......he had money and did something with it...why are you such a hater of that......
was your dad rich and you tossed it down the toilet?

Yeah, he put it somewhere for it to become more money. Investments are not "work" kind of like the lottery is not work.

They could get the money back into the economy by taxing the inheritance.

Inherited money is "outside of the economy"?

Ask PAPAGEORGIO. He said "Blowing 10-20 million, puts 10-20 million back into the economy."

Changing your story already?

Ask PAPAGEORGIO. It's his story, stupid.

Inherited money is already in the economy, glad you agree.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yes, it says usually measured in money--not usually measured from capital or labor. It's always measured in capital and labor. Usually measured in money means it could be from stock options given to a CEO or perhaps in profit sharing.

That's not how the sentence is written. The sentence says it's a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor. For usually to apply only to money and not to capital or labor, the sentence would have to be written with the following commas:
a gain or recurrent benefit, usually measured in money, that derives from capital or labor

Those commas are not there, so you are wrong.

The government doesn't create money--it only creates the notes that represent wealth. Wealth is created by the individual which gives currency it's value. Without people giving those notes value, they are nothing more than worthless pieces of paper.

The government is what controls the money supply and enforces property rights. Without that, you'd see any wealth associated with the money go down the toilet.

So now somebody dies in your family and leaves you with a 300K house. Should government force you to give them 100K in order to keep that house?

It should be taxed, yes.

Thank you for admitting that Comrade. All property should belong to the government.

You're an illiterate moron, which is why you keep attributing comments I never made to me. For example, here you imply that I said all (100%) of property should belong to the government, when all I said was it should be taxed (in response to a 33% tax question).

No, I just pulled on you what you have been doing this entire thread. Now, do you see the hypocrisy?

You can? Then retract your previous lies and I will retract this statement, you freaking Communist!

I see that you're an illiterate fool and one who comes up with laughably terrible excuses to try and cover that fact up.

Post one thing I have said that is incorrect, you lying sack of shit!

 

[francoHFW]

Read your own definition. It says usually. Otherwise it just refers to a gain or recurrent benefit in general. And what is a gain?

resources or advantage acquired or increased

Wealth/money is a resource and/or an advantage. And yes, when they get the inheritance, they acquire it.

If your father hands you $10,000 in cash, would you report it to the government as income? I didn't think so.

What kind of American are you that thinks the government is more deserving of ones wealth after he or she dies than the family? You ask what the kids did to earn that money, and I ask you what government did to earn that money?

What exchanges happen within the family are family matters--not government matters. Perhaps you want government sitting at your dinner table, and when you pass the biscuits to your daughter, government is there to take their few biscuits first before they pass the plate to your daughter. It's ridiculous.

People work hard to try and make their children's life better than theirs. They didn't go to work every day, take risks, only to hand their hard work over to government.

And learn how to read. The definition is usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor. I even highlighted the important part of the definition.

Do you know what usually means? It means it's usually from capital or labor, but can be from other things. The bottom line is income is income. Inheritance is income that is currently excused from taxation. If I were a rich deadbeat, of course I'd report it. The risk is too great and I'd still be a millionaire deadbeat afterwards, just with a few less million. I didn't have to work for any of it anyway. You can whine all you want to protect your rich deadbeat heroes, but you're basically a clown grasping at straws, especially with your "Do you understand the term INCOME TAX? It means tax on income." crap and your inability to read and comprehend a basic English sentence.

Governments will always control the money that THEY create and enforce. If you think it's none of their business, then the rich should be barred from using the government for enforcing their property rights. So if someone kills them to steal their money, the government should just ignore them. After all, you say it's none of the government's business. That wasn't Trump's tune when he was getting bankruptcy protection from the government!

Yes, it says usually measured in money--not usually measured from capital or labor. It's always measured in capital and labor. Usually measured in money means it could be from stock options given to a CEO or perhaps in profit sharing.

That's not how the sentence is written. The sentence says it's a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor. For usually to apply only to money and not to capital or labor, the sentence would have to be written with the following commas:
a gain or recurrent benefit, usually measured in money, that derives from capital or labor

Those commas are not there, so you are wrong.

The government doesn't create money--it only creates the notes that represent wealth. Wealth is created by the individual which gives currency it's value. Without people giving those notes value, they are nothing more than worthless pieces of paper.

The government is what controls the money supply and enforces property rights. Without that, you'd see any wealth associated with the money go down the toilet.

So now somebody dies in your family and leaves you with a 300K house. Should government force you to give them 100K in order to keep that house?

It should be taxed, yes.

Do you know what usually means? It means it's usually from capital or labor, but can be from other things. The bottom line is income is income. Inheritance is income that is currently excused from taxation. If I were a rich deadbeat, of course I'd report it. The risk is too great and I'd still be a millionaire deadbeat afterwards, just with a few less million. I didn't have to work for any of it anyway. You can whine all you want to protect your rich deadbeat heroes, but you're basically a clown grasping at straws, especially with your "Do you understand the term INCOME TAX? It means tax on income." crap and your inability to read and comprehend a basic English sentence.

Governments will always control the money that THEY create and enforce. If you think it's none of their business, then the rich should be barred from using the government for enforcing their property rights. So if someone kills them to steal their money, the government should just ignore them. After all, you say it's none of the government's business. That wasn't Trump's tune when he was getting bankruptcy protection from the government!

I’m getting tired of your lies, you have proof that those that inherit money as deadbeats? Of course you don’t, it is because you are dishonest and are just trolling along.

Unless you have proof positive, you are nothing but a bigot who is jealous and envious of what others have. You opinion is worthless.

Let me get this straight. You want me to prove that some of the people who inherit money are deadbeats?

Yep, prove it, I know people that have inherited money and worked just as hard as their parents, so put up or shut up, because you are acting like a loser that is bitter over their lot in life.

Take Trump for example. He got a big inheritance and still filed for bankruptcy protection. He's a deadbeat borrower. Won't pay his bills.

So one person proves your whole point? You are the one claiming everyone that inherits money are deadbeats, again put up or shut up. I’m tired of your bullshit claims based on your hate and prejudice.

he said some of them,Iiar.

 

[francoHFW]

Let me get this straight. You want me to prove that some of the people who inherit money are deadbeats?

Yep, prove it, I know people that have inherited money and worked just as hard as their parents, so put up or shut up, because you are acting like a loser that is bitter over their lot in life.

I worked hard and have plenty and still hate repub scum that have their jackboots on the throats of those who have less them them

But Democrats that inherit their money are okay, right?

Read how the trump POS cut his brothers family out of the fathers money??

Again his claim is all that inherit are deadbeats and are lazy, you got proof other than saying but Trump! But Trump! But Trump! Or does that sum up your whole argument?

He said some of them are deadbeats, liar.

 

[francoHFW]

Do you know what usually means? It means it's usually from capital or labor, but can be from other things. The bottom line is income is income. Inheritance is income that is currently excused from taxation. If I were a rich deadbeat, of course I'd report it. The risk is too great and I'd still be a millionaire deadbeat afterwards, just with a few less million. I didn't have to work for any of it anyway. You can whine all you want to protect your rich deadbeat heroes, but you're basically a clown grasping at straws, especially with your "Do you understand the term INCOME TAX? It means tax on income." crap and your inability to read and comprehend a basic English sentence.

Governments will always control the money that THEY create and enforce. If you think it's none of their business, then the rich should be barred from using the government for enforcing their property rights. So if someone kills them to steal their money, the government should just ignore them. After all, you say it's none of the government's business. That wasn't Trump's tune when he was getting bankruptcy protection from the government!

I’m getting tired of your lies, you have proof that those that inherit money as deadbeats? Of course you don’t, it is because you are dishonest and are just trolling along.

Unless you have proof positive, you are nothing but a bigot who is jealous and envious of what others have. You opinion is worthless.

Let me get this straight. You want me to prove that some of the people who inherit money are deadbeats?

Yep, prove it, I know people that have inherited money and worked just as hard as their parents, so put up or shut up, because you are acting like a loser that is bitter over their lot in life.

I worked hard and have plenty and still hate repub scum that have their jackboots on the throats of those who have less them them

But Democrats that inherit their money are okay, right?

More.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I’m getting tired of your lies, you have proof that those that inherit money as deadbeats? Of course you don’t, it is because you are dishonest and are just trolling along.

Unless you have proof positive, you are nothing but a bigot who is jealous and envious of what others have. You opinion is worthless.

Let me get this straight. You want me to prove that some of the people who inherit money are deadbeats?

Yep, prove it, I know people that have inherited money and worked just as hard as their parents, so put up or shut up, because you are acting like a loser that is bitter over their lot in life.

I worked hard and have plenty and still hate repub scum that have their jackboots on the throats of those who have less them them

But Democrats that inherit their money are okay, right?

Read how the trump POS cut his brothers family out of the fathers money??

He didn't cut anybody out of anything. He didn't have the ability to do that. If you need proof, just ask, I have the article in my FactCheck folder.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let me get this straight. You want me to prove that some of the people who inherit money are deadbeats?

If you know they are deadbeats, you must know it somehow. You must have a source.

Correct.

Great. Let's see it!

 

[bgrouse]

Let me get this straight. You want me to prove that some of the people who inherit money are deadbeats?

If you know they are deadbeats, you must know it somehow. You must have a source.

Correct.

Great. Let's see it!

I posed it already. See: Trump. Do you want a link to his bankruptcy?

 

[bgrouse]

That's not how the sentence is written. The sentence says it's a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor. For usually to apply only to money and not to capital or labor, the sentence would have to be written with the following commas:
a gain or recurrent benefit, usually measured in money, that derives from capital or labor

Those commas are not there, so you are wrong.The government is what controls the money supply and enforces property rights. Without that, you'd see any wealth associated with the money go down the toilet.It should be taxed, yes.

Thank you for admitting that Comrade. All property should belong to the government.

You're an illiterate moron, which is why you keep attributing comments I never made to me. For example, here you imply that I said all (100%) of property should belong to the government, when all I said was it should be taxed (in response to a 33% tax question).

No, I just pulled on you what you have been doing this entire thread. Now, do you see the hypocrisy?

You can? Then retract your previous lies and I will retract this statement, you freaking Communist!

I see that you're an illiterate fool and one who comes up with laughably terrible excuses to try and cover that fact up.

Post one thing I have said that is incorrect, you lying sack of shit!

You just quoted it (100% vs 33%). And it looks like someone else may have done so as well.

 

[bgrouse]

Quit pussyfooting and dodging, you cowardly turd! Put up or shut up.

What's a lie?

Trump didn't inherit or otherwise receive any considerable amount of money from his parents? Is that what you're saying? This requires a "yes" or "no" answer.

You first. Answer the question.

He got a loan. He has other brothers and sisters you know. They would have shared in their inheritance. How many of them became billionaires?

How the fuck should I know? Did I ever make any claim related to that regarding Trump's brothers and sisters? I'm asking someone to back up something they said. You're asking me to back up/explain something I didn't say.

You claimed he got rich because of inheritance, did you not?

That was a lie. He was already rich before his father and mother died. You are a liar. Admit it. You post things that you know for certain are not true. .

I said he got it from his dad, one way or another.

He inherited it, stupid. He may have also received some as a gift prior to his father's death.

That was, oh, over 100-200 posts back. See, it's that problem rearing its ugly head again: your illiteracy.

Apparently you can neither read nor write only when it suits you.

Post a link to your claim. You won't, because if you did post a link, you won't be back! You will turn tail and run like the lying coward you appear to be.

Here you go, dumbass!

It's post #50 of this thread.

Actually I think because it's none of our business. No matter what they pay, it's still a hell of a lot more than what your average American pays.

No, Buffett isn't doing anything for me, it just happens to work out that way. The reason we have lower capital gains taxes IS to encourage investments that do benefit all of us.

And that's the other thing that bothers me so much about these topics. The wealthy do benefit our society greatly. They create jobs, new taxation, products, services, and all the left can think of doing is cutting them down. The people they defend are the leaches of our society that contribute little or nothing, create problems for society, and people we can generally do without if you ask me.

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand that mindset.

You don't understand how economics work. Being "rich" does not do anything for anyone. A rich person is just someone entitled to goods and services. A rich person can be a worthless, lazy layabout rich kid who does absolutely nothing useful. That's the quickest way to make a lot of money in this country: inherit it.

The people who produce the goods and services are quite often middle class or poor. They get a little bit of money for their goods and services which they use to keep themselves alive by buying other goods and services. That's really how the economy works. A rich person is someone who inherited money from daddy. Essentially, it's entitlement they get to goods and services without ever having done anything for it. They often have little incentive to do anything useful since they don't really need any additional money. They are the real leeches, possibly even worse than deadbeat minority welfare moms person for person.

Stereotype much?

How do you think Trump got rich?

Working.

He inherited it, stupid. He may have also received some as a gift prior to his father's death.

 

[OKTexas]

Unconstitutional bills and supposedly unconstitutional laws, really, where do you get this crap?


.

How many laws for harassing Hispanics have been called unconstitutional by the courts, idiot?

I can't think of any because there are no laws that specifically target hispanics. Your claim otherwise is a lie.


.

Just Google Anti illegals laws deemed unconstitutional and you will find pages of this, dupe...
Why Trump's Immigration Rules Are Unconstitutional - POLITICO Magazine
Politico › magazine › story › 2017/02
Feb 1, 2017 · An executive order or law displays unconstitutional animus and thus violates the ... state constitution—deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Romer v.


Arizona SB 1070 - Wikipedia
Wikipedia › wiki › Arizona_SB_1070
In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the case Arizona v. United States, upholding the provision requiring immigration status checks during law enforcement stops

You know hispanics only make up about 60% of illegals, right? The rest come from virtually every country in the world. Like I said there are no laws that specifically target hispanics, but feel free to continue your lies and I'll continue to laugh at you.


.

Actually Hispanics are over 75% of illegals. And the only way to stop illegals coming in is a SSID card that can't be faked, and Republicans have blocked forever, Dupe.

You prove over and over that you're just not very smart. Anything created by man can be replicated by other men. And laws against illegals are NOT aimed specifically at hispanics, they are aimed at all illegals. The first lame link you posted was about muslims and the second was a State case having nothing to do with the feds and it was long before Trump.

Now, would you like to get back on topic, it's about tax cuts.


.