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

[The Derp]

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.

So health care isn't a national problem? Climate change isn't a national problem? Income inequality isn't a national problem? Do people in Texas get a different kind of colon cancer than people in Idaho? The concept of independent states all operating under different governments is antiquated and not reflective of the globalized and techno-oriented society we now live. In the 1700's, it was uncommon for commerce to happen routinely across state borders, now it's the norm. In the 1700's it took months for someone to travel by horse-and-buggy from Massachusetts to Georgia, now it happens in three hours. In the 1700's it took days, weeks, months for correspondence to reach its intended recipient, now it's instantaneous.

You don't apply 18th-century thinking to your daily life, so why do you apply it to government?

I think you're just a lazy fuckin' entitled prick who can't be expected to speak intelligently on any topic.

 

[bgrouse]

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?

I answered it already, and you quoted it. I guess you're dumb AND illiterate.

 

[Ame®icano]

You're an idiot because you think Trump didn't screw his creditors. You're also an idiot because you think I don't understand the difference between personal income and business income.

Creditors know the rick going into business. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose.

Were you one of those creditors? If you're not... well, of course you're not... so why do you care if one rich guy screw another rich guy. How that, other than having satisfaction of saying "Trump bankrupted" (and he didn't), is affecting your little life?

 

[Ame®icano]

Even if he had, he certainly shouldn't give it to you.

Why don't you ask your parents or relatives, small loan for investment...

By "small" do you mean a spoiled rich kid's/Trump's definition of "small?" Sorry, we don't have that much.

You mean... you're deadbeat?

 

[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.

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.

You're dodging this question:

You can spin it any way you want. The bottom line is everyone else pays money on their income. It doesn't have to be from labor or investments. Line 10 on the 1040 lists income from "Taxable refunds, credits, or offsets of state and local income taxes." Line 11 is for Alimony. There's also Unemployment compensation. Are you going to tell me these are all either from investments or labor?

 

[bgrouse]

You're an idiot because you think Trump didn't screw his creditors. You're also an idiot because you think I don't understand the difference between personal income and business income.

Creditors know the rick going into business. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose.

Were you one of those creditors? If you're not... well, of course you're not... so why do you care if one rich guy screw another rich guy. How that, other than having satisfaction of saying "Trump bankrupted" (and he didn't), is affecting your little life?

Why are you getting so defensive? I'm just saying Trump is a deadbeat. Why does it have to have an effect on my life?

 

[The Derp]

People kept giving the federal government more and more power, and I don't want to see them have any more.

What powers? Like the power to stop slavery from spreading to the new territories? Let's not mince words, when you speak of government power, what you're really saying is that you want to be able to oppress without a check on your authority. That's what the "states' rights" argument is all about; you don't like the fact that you can't discriminate according to your tastes and feelings, so you oppose a central authority that prevents you from doing that.

It's juvenile and amateur to argue, in a centralized economy and globalized world, that there needs to be separation and abrogation of centralization. No other nation in the world does that because they all recognize that they are stronger united with one purpose, rather than divided having to take into account the feelings of a dying underclass of mouth-breathers, racists, and nobodies who just want to be bigots without having to carry all the baggage that being a bigot brings.

Do you apply 18th-century thinking to the rest of your life? Do you cure your illness with leeches? Do you not have indoor plumbing? Do you struggle against the daily threat of bears and hostile natives? Is the quartering of British soldiers a threat that consumes your fear every day? Do you send smoke signals instead of e-mails? Do you travel by horse-and-buggy on unpaved roads? Do you even have electricity?

It's weird how you arbitrarily pick and choose when you want to apply 18th century thinking to your life.

 

[The Derp]

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. .

Stupid.

You sit at your computer in Seattle, WA; order a product from Miami, FL; pay for it with a credit card based in Wilmington, DE; and have it shipped by a Dallas, TX company.

But you're here arguing that the economy isn't centralized.

Fucking idiot.

 

[The Derp]

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..

Low taxes in these states are subsidized by the welfare block grants red states use to paper over the deficits caused by their fiscal policies. So you guys quite literally use welfare to pay for trickle-down. Which would make you all a bunch of moochers.

 

[bgrouse]

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. .

Stupid.

You sit at your computer in Seattle, WA; order a product from Miami, FL; pay for it with a credit card based in Wilmington, DE; and have it shipped by a Dallas, TX company.

But you're here arguing that the economy isn't centralized.

Fucking idiot.

They're stupid AND illiterate. When backed into a corner, they move goalposts and try to drown you out with sheer volume.

 

[The Derp]

They're stupid AND illiterate. When backed into a corner, they move goalposts and try to drown you out with sheer volume.

That's exactly right. Stupid, illiterate cowards. I happen to think a handful of them aren't even American; they're Russian trolls pretending to be American as they test out rhetoric here before disseminating it across social media.

You can tell who the Russians are a couple ways; first is by checking when their profile was created. If it was created between 2011 and 2016 (particularly 2013-15, when the troll ramp-up was in full swing), it's most likely a Russian account created to spread propaganda. Other ways of discerning a Russian troll are the use of misspellings and the misuse of grammatical structure; almost as if they wrote something in Cyrillic, put it through a Google translator, then copied-and-pasted that stuff right into the post.

 

[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.

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.

Except the sentence doesn't end there, dumbass. It's usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor. Usually, but not always. It could also be measured in money that derives from unemployment compensation or alimony, as your average 1040 would tell you. Didn't your ESL teacher teach you to read the entire sentence? Sentences in the English language are made up of words. You have to read all of them, not just up to the point where you exhaust all of your mental abilities.

Next year, I'm sure she'll get into more complicated concepts like context.

 

[francoHFW]

Liberals are highly in favor of helping the middle class and small business but don't see why the big tax cuts go to the rich and giant corporations that are bloated beyond all recognition by lack of taxes.

Liberals are highly in favor of helping the middle class and small business

That's so good to hear.
When was the last time Dems gave the middle class and small business a tax cut?

Obama gave the middle class a payroll tax cut in 2009 just as high a percentage as Trump's tax cuts and nothing for the bloated lying cheating GOP rich...

Obama gave the middle class a payroll tax cut in 2009 just as high a percentage as Trump's tax cuts

His temporary cut is just as high as Trump's? Prove it.

His cut was 2% right same as trumps. of course under Trump's the rich get 4%...

His cut was 2% right same as trumps.

His cut was temporary....and reduced your SS benefit.

Republicans refused to extend it as they refused everything he wanted to do, and there was no reduction in the SS benefit. Congress can steal from the retirement fund and it can steal from other monies.

 

[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.

You're dodging this question:

You can spin it any way you want. The bottom line is everyone else pays money on their income. It doesn't have to be from labor or investments. Line 10 on the 1040 lists income from "Taxable refunds, credits, or offsets of state and local income taxes." Line 11 is for Alimony. There's also Unemployment compensation. Are you going to tell me these are all either from investments or labor?

You earn unemployment benefits while you are working. So yes, that is income, you just didn't get paid for it until you filed.

Years ago I got laid off from a job and went to unemployment. They refused me because I worked so much I hardly took any time off of work. I did good work for the company so they paid me for all the sick days I never took, vacation, personal days, layoff compensation, and it amounted to 9 weeks of pay.

Of course I had to file that as income because I earned that pay while working. Unemployment seen it the same way. I have no idea what alimony is about.

 

[francoHFW]

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?

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.

Wait one minute.....are you saying lower taxes allow businesses to lower their prices?

Don't tell the liberals....

Liberals are highly in favor of helping the middle class and small business but don't see why the big tax cuts go to the rich and giant corporations that are bloated beyond all recognition by lack of taxes.

Liberals are highly in favor of helping the middle class and small business

That's so good to hear.
When was the last time Dems gave the middle class and small business a tax cut?

Obama gave the middle class a payroll tax cut in 2009 just as high a percentage as Trump's tax cuts and nothing for the bloated lying cheating GOP rich...

. Ok, so what was the result of that payroll tax cut ?? Did the citizens run out and start a business, create a college fund for their kids, hire a landscaper, get some repairs done on the house, buy a better car or what ? How many jobs did it create ? Did it just go POOF ?

It was part of the remedy that brought back the US and much of the world economy, dingbat.

 

[OKTexas]

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%.

Yeah, 500% of zero is still zero. Lefties can't grasp that concept. LMAO


.

 

[francoHFW]

State and local taxes and fees are higher than they would be without the Republicans cutting federal aid to the states so they can give the rich a tax break. Everywhere.

the non Rich get all the tax breaks now. The mega rich and the giant corporations have been getting all the tax breaks 35 years and it has s never helped

Who should, in your own opinion, get the tax breaks and why?

The non rich should get all the tax breaks now until the damage of the last 35 years of GOP give away to the rich has ended.

 

[francoHFW]

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%.

Yeah, 500% of zero is still zero. Lefties can't grasp that concept. LMAO


.

There are plenty of other taxes besides federal income taxes, brainwashed dupe of the greedy idiot rich. The richest pay 28% of their income in all taxes, the poorest pay 18%. Everyone who earns money real money pays between 24 and 28 percent in all taxes. That is a flat tax and means that the richest end up with all the new wealth and the country and the non-rich go to hell as they have for the last 35 years, dupe.

 

[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!

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?

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.

In a way, that would be the b******* no evidence crap way LOL!

 

[francoHFW]

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?

The Republican governor and the people he appointed to the emergency Administration. Great job GOP!