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

[Ame®icano]

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.


.

I don't care if they're Muslims or Mexicans or what. If they are worthy they can stay. Now pass the dam SS ID card and end it.

As for taxes, it's ridiculous to cut taxes on the rich again. The non rich need tax cuts and help. You dupes are out of your mind.

The middle class got lots of tax savings coming up, that you been duped isn’t our issue. The standard deductions went up, tax credits for the middle class went up and the percentage taxed went down, hater.

I said it is ridiculous for the rich to get big tax cuts -none of that

Hey dipstick, you can't get a big tax cut unless you're paying big taxes to begin with. Your IQ seems to be dropping by the second.
.

Those 47% who pay no federal income taxes should get at least double amount of money they paid in.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.


.

I don't care if they're Muslims or Mexicans or what. If they are worthy they can stay. Now pass the dam SS ID card and end it.

As for taxes, it's ridiculous to cut taxes on the rich again. The non rich need tax cuts and help. You dupes are out of your mind.

The middle class got lots of tax savings coming up, that you been duped isn’t our issue. The standard deductions went up, tax credits for the middle class went up and the percentage taxed went down, hater.

I said it is ridiculous for the rich to get big tax cuts -none of that

Hey dipstick, you can't get a big tax cut unless you're paying big taxes to begin with. Your IQ seems to be dropping by the second.
.

Those 47% who pay no federal income taxes should get at least double amount of money they paid in.

Why? So they can have money that I earned?

 

[Ame®icano]

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.


.

I don't care if they're Muslims or Mexicans or what. If they are worthy they can stay. Now pass the dam SS ID card and end it.

As for taxes, it's ridiculous to cut taxes on the rich again. The non rich need tax cuts and help. You dupes are out of your mind.

They are not worthy, they are criminals. And everyone got a tax cut, not just the rich. Keep pushing the propaganda, it's quite entertaining.


.

I think people in blue States aren't going to get tax cuts. And the rich are getting 4% tax cuts while the poor are getting two or 1% tax cuts. I hope he's a goddamn genius but I wouldn't hold your breath they're liars and thieves more likely...

The poor don't pay income taxes how can they get cuts?


.

Those should get at least 300% cut. No, scratch that, make it 500%.

 

[Ame®icano]

Not sure what this has to do with our discussion. Like I said, I did not say what Trump did was illegal, just that he is a deadbeat. What does any of this have to do with whether or not I support bankruptcy law?

What exactly makes him a deadbeat?

 

[Ame®icano]

Every other country has a progressive tax system, here we don't anymore. Federal income taxes are much smaller now and the only Progressive one.

Why should I care how other countries are taxing their people?

Every other country is turning into socialist, leaning communist state. Americans don't need that.

 

[Ame®icano]

I don't need to ask you to do that, I already see you're wrong. The loss of real estate tax deductions are for personal real estate, not for business real estate. You shouldn't discuss things you don't understand.

no sir, you are the one that does not understand

it's been widely reported and acknowledged, even by news outlets that tend to lean left, that this tax bill increases the overall federal tax burden for many of the wealthiest landowners

the little guy gets a break

the super wealthy with expensive property that live off of passive income wind up paying more

sorry this upsets you...

It's right in the tax bill, you idiot.

SEC. 11042. LIMITATION ON DEDUCTION FOR STATE AND LOCAL, ETC. TAXES.

(a) In General.—Subsection (b) of section 164 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

“(B) the aggregate amount of taxes taken into account under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a) and paragraph (5) of this subsection for any taxable year shall not exceed $10,000 ($5,000 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return).

If you click on the link of section 164, it leads you to this:

(1) Personal property taxes
The term "personal property tax" means an ad valorem tax which is imposed on an annual basis in respect of personal property.

(2) State or local taxes
A State or local tax includes only a tax imposed by a State, a possession of the United States, or a political subdivision of any of the foregoing, or by the District of Columbia.

(3) Foreign taxes
A foreign tax includes only a tax imposed by the authority of a foreign country.

(5) General sales taxes

As you can see, the only section being limited to $10,000 that has to do with property taxes is explicitly listed as PERSONAL property taxes and has nothing to do with land investors who do it as a business, especially through business entities.

it also affects vacation (or second) homes; which you only have to use 14 days a year

eliminating state & local taxes as a deductions, especially property taxes increases the tax burden for the really wealthy, the loss of property tax deductions will raise their overall tax burden

calling me an idiot doesn't change this

yes, you are correct that it does not include investment properties; and I did get that part wrong

good catch, I have to give you that one

By my rough calculations, a person making $10,000,000 a year in taxable income will save a little under $300,000 in tax under the new tax rules from the brackets. Sorry, I just don't see too many rich people losing out because of real estate taxes.

$300,000 may look big to deadbeats.

In reality it's just 3%.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

He's not wrong. You are.

The problem is how to explain to leftist something that is self explanatory, when leftist wants it to mean something else.

Commas are not there because gain or recurrent benefit is usually measured in money.

Usually. But not necessary. They can be measured in other values that derives from capital or labor.

If I were you, I would sit someplace in the corner where nobody can see me, and pull my ears over my face to hide shame from being THAT stupid.

But that's me. Knowing leftists, you are gonna continue posting here and prove to us over and over why you should go and sit in the corner with your ears pulled over your face.

I was trying to explain it to him but you know how the left is. It's like trying to talk to a brick wall.

I was trying to explain that "usually" is in reference to the type of compensation--not the word income. The words "capital" and "labor" are the reference to what income actually is. It has nothing to do with commas, it has to do with understanding what words mean. When he tries to Clintonize it in his response, you can try again, but I gave up.

 

[Ame®icano]

I didn't say it was fair to do that.

Are you just making things up that you believe I will say?

You seem very upset about the tax cut

This tax cut will help me keep more of My money

In fact, the only ones that get "hurt" are the wealthiest landowners

So why the outrage friend?

I don't know why Democrats are so upset about this new tax law. They keep saying it's bad for middle class. If true, than they should be cheering for it. If this law is sooooo wrong, than they won't have any problem wining the midterm elections and making it right.

This law is not great, bit it's a start of something better than we had. That's why Democrats are hating it, because they know that everyone, especially the middle class, will be better off, and that's the last thing Democrats want to see.

I see your middle class better off LOL and raise you trump corker etc etc many millions How does this BS shrink the disparity between rich and middle class? and then a trillion deficit and cut social services?? Only in republican world

There has always been disparity between rich and the others, and that disparity rose regardless of who was in power. Having said that, how Democrats can claim they;re "party of the people" and that Republicans are party of the rich, if rich were getting richer especially when they were in power.

Trillion plus deficit is not gonna happen tomorrow, it's going to be over ten years, assuming we maintain current growth. It's peanuts comparing to ten trillion over Barry's eight years. However, if these tax cuts bring back overseas capital and jobs back, growth itself may eliminate the deficit and pay some of the debt we're in.

Now, explain to me, how is not better for me if I keep more of my earned money?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh ? The disparity between rich and middle class isn't enough for you now?? Growing larger the past 30 or so years and STILL you're not satisfied?? Trump Corker etc etc etc laughing all the way to the bank and the middle gets crumbs ? And we should bow down and kiss trumps ring?

So if the government takes more from the rich, how does that help me or any other blue collar worker?

Well, if the govt takes more from the rich, it means smaller businesses will be more competitive, which means some blue collar workers might get the chance to successfully start their own business. It'll also mean that recessions won't be as strong which means there's more of a chance you'll not end up unemployed for years at a time.

. How does the government taking more from the rich help small businesses start up or survive today ?? Are we using government to pick winners and losers when it decides to shift wealth over to whatever or over to small businesses, and as soon as it does so, and in so many cases these day's, don't such businesses end up failing within 3 years tops ? Then what ?? Oh I know, and then it (the government) decides to fund and promote every kind of other bullcrap known to modern man, but these things end up being huge failures just as well.

Just like the states where state government can come up with multiple schemes or ideas to raise revenue for roads, bridges and there repairs for example, but just check back with those states years later, and the roads and bridges are still failing, and there is never enough money to do the jobs....... So the bullcrap tax schemes continue without any fiscal responsibility to be found anywhere in sight.

I have seen budgets added to or funded for road jobs, but the road crews are then directed to paving back roads way out in the rural & way out of sight, while in the meantime the main roads, and the heavily traveled roads are left in disrepair in order to make claims on and on that more money is needed, and more money is needed.

It never ends, and important progress is minimal at best. Pathetic !!

The biggest way big business wins is each different part of the US competing against every other part. The EU has basically banned this. It's said you can choose a tax rate system and you have to stick to it, otherwise big business will simply play divide and conquer.

Companies like Amazon will literally go around the country and say "who's willing to give us money for setting up shop here?" and they do. The jobs would stay in the US no matter what, however the money goes to Amazon when it shouldn't.

Imagine this.

You run a small business with a profit of $100,000 a year.

Then big business arrives in town, and you have competition. But the big business arrives without having to pay tax for five years. Their prices are lower than yours because they're not paying tax.

So your $100,000 drops because you have to drop prices down to the lowest level you can realistically afford to stay in business. This still isn't enough. Half your customers go shop at the large company. This means you're making no profit at all. The city is making less in taxers because you're paying half taxes you were paying before or less, and the other company isn't paying taxes at all.

Along the way other companies fail and yours will too. Meaning the larger company has taken all the customers by the end of the five year period, then renegotiates a nice sweet deal because they can't afford to see this company leave any more because it provides too many jobs.

How does this benefit anyone other than the rich?

Take WALMART for example They come to town businesses close

Actually just the opposite. We had a new mall open up around ten years ago. Walmart was the main character. Walmart is what's known in business as the Anchor Store. The land contracts of the smaller businesses in the mall were constructed around the anchor store. As Beagle9 noted, Walmart brings customers to those smaller stores.

The mall opened up and in a few years, Walmart found a way out of the contract because they wanted to build a Super Walmart about ten miles up the road. When they left, the new mall fell apart. Those smaller businesses lost their customers. They had to close up and were legally allowed to do so because their contract was null and void if the anchor store closed up or left.

If you want to look it up, the mall is called City View located in Garfield Heights, Ohio. With the exception of a grocery store and some small shops on the edge of the mall, the place is deserted, and it's a great location with easy parking and lots of room. It's a real shame.

 

[The Derp]

You actually have to work and make enough money to pay taxes to actually benefit..

WRONG.

Because you morons tied the tax brackets to chained CPI, anyone making up to $75K a year will be paying more in taxes by 2027 than they do now. And on top of that, benefit cuts to Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid will start in 2019, along with health insurance premiums growing an additional 10%. So you give the middle class an $80 tax cut, but increase their health insurance premiums by $600, increase their health care costs by an undetermined amount, and raise their taxes by 2027.

 

[The Derp]

Actually just the opposite. We had a new mall open up around ten years ago. Walmart was the main character. Walmart is what's known in business as the Anchor Store. The land contracts of the smaller businesses in the mall were constructed around the anchor store. As Beagle9 noted, Walmart brings customers to those smaller stores.

No it doesn't. The whole purpose of WalMart is to undercut and eliminate small businesses because it offers the products (and services in some cases) those stores do, but at a much cheaper price. I don't want to say your anecdote is bullshit, but...

 

[Ame®icano]

Best to have Democrats protecting the water...

apparently not

the city council in Atlanta is almost exclusively run by democrats

I mean sure, the white folks in Buckhead send a few republicans, but the city is certainly run by democrats

nice try though

Democrats love clean water. Just ask people of Flint.

That had nothing to do with republicans?

You tell me. Who decided to switch the water supply source?

Or better, who is in power in Flint for the past 50 years?

 

[Ame®icano]

Best to have Democrats protecting the water...

apparently not

the city council in Atlanta is almost exclusively run by democrats

I mean sure, the white folks in Buckhead send a few republicans, but the city is certainly run by democrats

nice try though

Democrats love clean water. Just ask people of Flint.

Rick Snyder Republican
Flint Water Crisis 'Series of Government Failures' to Blame | Time
time.com › U.S. › cities
Mar 23, 2016 - Michigan state agencies overseen by Gov. Rick Snyder and a series of emergency managers appointed by the governor are to blame for allowing contaminated water into Flint homes, according to a report released Wednesday. The findings—the most sweeping indictment to date of the role state officials ...

Decision to switch water source was all Democrats to save the money, or to fill their pockets.

The Republican fault is they didn't prevent Democrats from making a mistake.

From your link: "The report did find one bright spot: the determination of Flint residents, who repeatedly questioned officials about the water supply even after the city told them it was OK to drink."

When they said "city" you know who that is, right?

 

[bgrouse]

You would be taxed once on it when you earn it.

I'll say it another way for you and I'll assume you've never had to pay taxes in regards to this. It only deserves to be taxed once. I earned it and if it's $10 or $10,000,000 it should be taxed the same, don't tell me it's a progressive tax. The Federal Government runs our budgets like a drunk sailor in a whore house, I'm sick and tired of feeding the drunk sailor.

Your kid would be taxed once when he receives it.

No kidding, that's the issue, no need to be redundant, but you deserve it, it's called stealing...

Neither one person would be taxed "multiply times" on the inheritance.

The money would be, again you probably haven't paid it...

Now you're moving the goal posts. You initially said "The Federal Government, State or Local has no business taxing an individual multiply times." Now you don't want the money to be taxed multiple times? So you think the government can only tax new dollar bills it prints? Should they write down the serial number of every dollar they tax? Holy crap you're an idiot!

So you drop down to the insults when you can’t find a way out, this is why you’ll never deal with this issue, your jealousy is bright green...

You're the one moving the goalposts and twisting in the wind. The only thing bright green is your inability to understand income taxation. Sorry, but you sound so stupid when you say what you say and I tend to call things and people what they are.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

Considering that trumps businesses have gone bankrupt three or four times and he ended up being a brand name and a reality TV bozo... He is a bad businessman. In the end he just took money to put his name on other people's buildings. He's a con man who will never show his tax returns...

How many of your businesses are successful?

Sorry, daddy didn't give me millions to invest.

OK, how much your daddy gave you?

 

[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!

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.

If you only knew how idiotic you sound.

Can you explain what's connection between his inheritance and bankruptcies?

The connection is he got a huge head start in life and still fucked up more than the vast majority of the population judging by bankruptcy amount.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Look....... I work for a small company of less than a dozen employees including myself. I talk with my employer all the time about business. He told me he had all kinds of tax breaks for the first seven years he had his business. There is no giving tax breaks to larger businesses than smaller businesses. If anything, just the opposite. Our company competes with the big boys every single day, and we are doing just fine.

Since I work with industry every single day, I'm quite aware of the advantages larger businesses have over smaller ones. It has nothing to do with government.

As a musician, I remember the days of big music stores. They were locally owned and built up to their size. But along came places like Guitar Centers and put them out of business. Why? Because Guitar Centers open up their outlets with over a million dollars in musical instruments. No local dealer could compete with them. Think of that. Over a million dollars of musical instruments under one roof! Because of their ability to purchase high quality instruments in quantity, they were able to out price every single local store in the Cleveland area and I'm sure across most of the country.

No giving tax breaks to larger businesses? Where the hell have you been for the last, I don't know, 30 years?

Billions in tax breaks offered to Amazon for second headquarters

"
Billions in tax breaks offered to Amazon for second headquarters"

Didn't happen huh? Your boss didn't tell you about it, so you don't know about it, so it simply didn't happen.

Are you talking about local tax breaks or federal? I was talking about federal. There are no controls over what a state or city offers in tax breaks. It's all fair game and fair competition. In fact, our neighboring suburb just got an Amazon contract. There is another one about 20 miles from here as well.

Tax abatements are used to attract businesses. And who is competing with Amazon anyway? It doesn't matter if there is an Amazon next door to you or 500 miles away. Any internet business is killing small and large brick and mortar stores alike.

Oh, oh, oh, right, I forgot you were talking only about federal because.... well because you didn't fucking mention that. How silly of me to forget.

I'm talking about TAXES here Ray. I know you did it last time with the whole "rich people pay loads of INCOME TAX (and let's ignore all the other taxes)."

We're talking about ALL TAXES that a company has to pay. Why? Because that's the ONLY THING that makes sense when discussing how businesses are doing.

Excuse me. I just assumed you were talking about federal taxes since that is the theme of this thread.

As for local taxes, there is nothing anybody can do about that because small businesses don't bring in the tax revenue that large businesses bring in. We are a nation of states--not a nation of the federal government. Therefore states are free to do as they wish without interference or control by the feds.

If your state is giving breaks to big businesses to lure them in, then vote those representatives out. Tell them you don't want new businesses in your state. Tell them that you want the state to try and survive on mom and pop shop taxes and not companies that hire thousands of citizens for jobs.

Our state will be glad to take any new businesses you don't want. In fact we will welcome them with open arms. We will give them tax abatements, pave old roads, make new roads if need be. So send those businesses our way and you can remain in your one horse town.

No, small businesses don't bring in the tax that large businesses bring in. But that's not the point. The point is that if you have 10 small companies, they'll bring in more tax than one large corporation, even when the 10 combined have the same income as the one large corporation.

The large corporations are playing the system and screwing everyone over. It's pretty clear and it's pretty simple.

The EU has banned such a thing from happening because they know just how bad it is.

The problem is Ray, if the representatives are not bringing the jobs in, then people won't vote them in. This is the problem, the system encourages corruption. Until the system changes, then the corruption will go on.

Do you understand why I support a change in the system.

You said yourself "choice is freedom" and the political system doesn't offer choice. You have reps and dems. If the reps and dems don't pay the bribes, then what? Why should bribery and corruption be LEGITIMIZED?

That's the whole point, one state will be happy to bribe a company if another state isn't willing to bribe that company.

So you get Amazon, or Google or whoever else in your state, you don't earn money from them but you get jobs. The jobs look good for the state govt and the politicians and their careers go higher BY SPENDING YOUR MONEY so rich people don't pay taxes.

What would be ideal would be that a state or city can set taxes at a certain rate and everyone pays those taxes fairly. This is what the EU has done, and it's neutralized the power of large corporations, like Google, to buy the govt. This is exactly what happened in Ireland, it's it benefits the EU. The US is just a fucking whore selling its ass to the highest bidder.

For one, we are not Europe and I hope never to be. The United States is just that--United States. This means our country was supposed to be like a bunch of little countries called states that run their own governments. Only on federal matters were we to join forces to solve national problems.

As time went on, it didn't work out that way unfortunately. People kept giving the federal government more and more power, and I don't want to see them have any more.

So states compete against each other for businesses the way it should be. Locals are more in control of their state government than they are the federal government, so each state can decide how it will conduct themselves in business matters.

If my representatives are not bringing jobs to my state by whatever means, it's time to get rid of them and hire representatives that will bring in new business. If you think your state does better with ten mom and pop shops over huge industry, then be my guest and offer them lower taxes than we offer our mom and pop stores. We'll stick with the conglomerates and see who does better.

And that my friend is choice.

 

[Ame®icano]

If you GET money from inheritance, it is income, just exempted from tax. Don't be an idiot.

I told him the same, don't be like bgrouse.

Someone said Trump got rich by working.

in·come
ˈinˌkəm/
noun

1. money received, for work or through investments.

Got it?

Nice cherrypicking. I'm sure it convinces your retarded friends.

It's right on point. Google it.

 

[The Derp]

It's right on point. Google it.

Trump was born on the basepaths between 3rd and home and thinks he hit a home run.

 

[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).

In a way, that's your goal, as proposed in Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto. You want now only 33%, but it's never enough, since rich are getting richer, right?

Why are you asking me? You're the one posting about communism, Lenin.

Let's see number one: "Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose." Isn't that what you lefties are living for? You can read rest of them on the link above. I'm not sure is Democrat platform written to mimic Communist Manifesto or National Socialist Platform of 1932.