Q. For Small Government Adherents

[Jarlaxle]

IF it wasn't for government jobs like the
Cdc we wouldn't be able to fight diseases like the swine flue or Ebola. Yet, these assholes blamed Obama for it and expected him to stop it! Can't do that without the CDC and NIH.

Can't warn the entire population of that tornado or hurricane or severe weather without the national weather service.

Can't make sure our water and air is clean without the epa and regulations demanding that it be so.

Can't make sure our food and medicine is good for you...Hell, we'd look like mexico or some other third world hell hole if it wasn't for the good old FDA!

You mean the people that let children die because approving a new drug takes forever? (Often, despite the fact it is ALREADY approved and in use in Europe.) The people that are making doctors terrified of getting arrested for "over-prescribing", so that finding someone to treat chronic pain is difficult and getting worse?

Government invest big time in science. We wouldn't lead or be within the top 10 in science if it wasn't so! NSF, etc.

Government uses our tax dollars to maintain our roads. You're going to pay one way or another!

Just imagine how much easier it would be if they DIDN'T divert (in some cases) HALF the money to a slush fund.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- The income tax is the only progressive tax we have.

So you mentioned getting rid of the only progressive tax, and claimed that the revenue from all the regressive taxes would be "sufficient".

So yes, when you mentioned $1.6 trillion in revenues, those were ALL from regressive taxes.

That is simply incorrect in your claim. Both the Capital Gains and Inheritance Tax come to mind for taxes that aren't regressive.

You are being dishonest in your use of language. I don't support making all taxes regressive, or instituting a regressive tax in place of the income tax. I want no replacement. I just support removing the income tax, which is progressive. These are two different things.

- Capital gains taxes are barely progressive at all, and account for a small amount of the $1.6 trillion you mention - most of which are very much regressive, such as FICA.

It isn't "barely progressive". It is either progressive and rates are based on income like the income tax. Also, you characterization of me "making all taxes regressive" is not only false, but it is dishonest. It implies I am imposing more taxes on those with less income, or imposing a tax on them in place of the income tax, when I am reducing the tax burden on all.

- The top rate is 28%, and is achieved at a low bracket. FICA is flat, with a cap - clearly regressive.

You are absolutely imposing more taxes on those with less income, and advocating a regressive tax regime.

If you disagree, then propose how you would restore the progressivity to the taxes which you removed by removing the income tax.

We both know you won't do that, so let's be frank: it is not me being dishonest here. The lady is protesting too much over there - trying to slide your proposals within the Overton Window so they don't seem as savage as they are.

You understand the bottom 47% of wage earners not only pay no income taxes, they actually get back more than they paid in. So your regressive argument is wrong because it fails to consider refundable tax credits.

- They pay no federal income taxes now - but they do pay other taxes, including FICA, for a total of 16% of their income, total, in taxes.

The rich, who spend lower portions of their income, pay less - largely because, as your mongoloid buddy Rabbi pointed out, you get to choose when to realize a capital gain, so as not to have to pay income taxes on your income until such time as you choose to.

Now Steinlight proposes removing the burden on the rich by removing income taxes, which is no tax break at all for half of Americans - and, while doing this, he whines that doesn't make taxes less progressive.

You all can't help but trip over yourselves as you spin around chasing your tails.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- First of all, I don't know what policies you're talking about, so there's no way to establish if that's true or not.

Second, what makes you assume that I give a flying shit about any particular politician's or party's policies?

It will help you understand my words better if you do not project your partisan adulation onto me.

If you do not know what policies Democrats enacted in Obama's first two years then maybe you are too ill informed to engage in meaningful discussion. actually I think I've found the problem.

- I've been on discussion boards for many years, and I can honestly say I haven't run into a poster dumber than you.

I don't know if you're THE dumbest - it's really tough to say, there are so many to choose from - but your inability to grasp basic logic, combined with a thoroughly disagreeable personality, place you at the bottom of the heap.

I know what policies were passed, you ignorant halfwit.

I just can't guess which ones you might happen to be referring to, not being able to read the mind of a dimwitted hobbit.

So you cannot grasp which Democrat policies affected the economy, and somehow this is my fault? I truly pity someone who has to go through life with an "intellect" like yours.
You've been spanked so many times on this thread I am shocked you havent given up. Part of your stupidity I guess.

- I can't grasp what is in the moldering space between your ears, which is what you actually asked me to divine.

Spanked?

lol!!! I'm being told by a borderline mongoloid that I've been "spanked". Imagine my fretfulness over the affair!

I'm not the one claiming he doesnt know what Democrat economic policies did to income inequality.

- Neither am I.

I'm the one claiming I don't know if there's anything in the whistly space between your ears, which is what you asked me to identify.

 

[The Rabbi]

That is simply incorrect in your claim. Both the Capital Gains and Inheritance Tax come to mind for taxes that aren't regressive.

You are being dishonest in your use of language. I don't support making all taxes regressive, or instituting a regressive tax in place of the income tax. I want no replacement. I just support removing the income tax, which is progressive. These are two different things.

- Capital gains taxes are barely progressive at all, and account for a small amount of the $1.6 trillion you mention - most of which are very much regressive, such as FICA.

It isn't "barely progressive". It is either progressive and rates are based on income like the income tax. Also, you characterization of me "making all taxes regressive" is not only false, but it is dishonest. It implies I am imposing more taxes on those with less income, or imposing a tax on them in place of the income tax, when I am reducing the tax burden on all.

- The top rate is 28%, and is achieved at a low bracket. FICA is flat, with a cap - clearly regressive.

You are absolutely imposing more taxes on those with less income, and advocating a regressive tax regime.

If you disagree, then propose how you would restore the progressivity to the taxes which you removed by removing the income tax.

We both know you won't do that, so let's be frank: it is not me being dishonest here. The lady is protesting too much over there - trying to slide your proposals within the Overton Window so they don't seem as savage as they are.

You understand the bottom 47% of wage earners not only pay no income taxes, they actually get back more than they paid in. So your regressive argument is wrong because it fails to consider refundable tax credits.

- They pay no federal income taxes now - but they do pay other taxes, including FICA, for a total of 16% of their income, total, in taxes.

The rich, who spend lower portions of their income, pay less - largely because, as your mongoloid buddy Rabbi pointed out, you get to choose when to realize a capital gain, so as not to have to pay income taxes on your income until such time as you choose to.

Now Steinlight proposes removing the burden on the rich by removing income taxes, which is no tax break at all for half of Americans - and, while doing this, he whines that doesn't make taxes less progressive.

You all can't help but trip over yourselves as you spin around chasing your tails.

You want to claim that income taxes arent progressive enough and when I point out that the bottom of wage earners pay no income taxes you deflect to FICA. Which higher income people also pay.
You have lost this argument. Bye.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you do not know what policies Democrats enacted in Obama's first two years then maybe you are too ill informed to engage in meaningful discussion. actually I think I've found the problem.

- I've been on discussion boards for many years, and I can honestly say I haven't run into a poster dumber than you.

I don't know if you're THE dumbest - it's really tough to say, there are so many to choose from - but your inability to grasp basic logic, combined with a thoroughly disagreeable personality, place you at the bottom of the heap.

I know what policies were passed, you ignorant halfwit.

I just can't guess which ones you might happen to be referring to, not being able to read the mind of a dimwitted hobbit.

So you cannot grasp which Democrat policies affected the economy, and somehow this is my fault? I truly pity someone who has to go through life with an "intellect" like yours.
You've been spanked so many times on this thread I am shocked you havent given up. Part of your stupidity I guess.

- I can't grasp what is in the moldering space between your ears, which is what you actually asked me to divine.

Spanked?

lol!!! I'm being told by a borderline mongoloid that I've been "spanked". Imagine my fretfulness over the affair!

I'm not the one claiming he doesnt know what Democrat economic policies did to income inequality.

- Neither am I.

I'm the one claiming I don't know if there's anything in the whistly space between your ears, which is what you asked me to identify.

I have not asked you to do anything. You fail again. A real record here.

 

[TemplarKormac]

- I've been on discussion boards for many years, and I can honestly say I haven't run into a poster dumber than you.

.

Did you spend all those years on boards insulting people?

 

[Pksimon2007]

- Capital gains taxes are barely progressive at all, and account for a small amount of the $1.6 trillion you mention - most of which are very much regressive, such as FICA.

It isn't "barely progressive". It is either progressive and rates are based on income like the income tax. Also, you characterization of me "making all taxes regressive" is not only false, but it is dishonest. It implies I am imposing more taxes on those with less income, or imposing a tax on them in place of the income tax, when I am reducing the tax burden on all.

- The top rate is 28%, and is achieved at a low bracket. FICA is flat, with a cap - clearly regressive.

You are absolutely imposing more taxes on those with less income, and advocating a regressive tax regime.

If you disagree, then propose how you would restore the progressivity to the taxes which you removed by removing the income tax.

We both know you won't do that, so let's be frank: it is not me being dishonest here. The lady is protesting too much over there - trying to slide your proposals within the Overton Window so they don't seem as savage as they are.

You understand the bottom 47% of wage earners not only pay no income taxes, they actually get back more than they paid in. So your regressive argument is wrong because it fails to consider refundable tax credits.

- They pay no federal income taxes now - but they do pay other taxes, including FICA, for a total of 16% of their income, total, in taxes.

The rich, who spend lower portions of their income, pay less - largely because, as your mongoloid buddy Rabbi pointed out, you get to choose when to realize a capital gain, so as not to have to pay income taxes on your income until such time as you choose to.

Now Steinlight proposes removing the burden on the rich by removing income taxes, which is no tax break at all for half of Americans - and, while doing this, he whines that doesn't make taxes less progressive.

You all can't help but trip over yourselves as you spin around chasing your tails.

You want to claim that income taxes arent progressive enough and when I point out that the bottom of wage earners pay no income taxes you deflect to FICA. Which higher income people also pay.
You have lost this argument. Bye.

- Oh, my, look who got emotional.

Yes, the lowest end pays a very flat 16% in taxes. That takes a lot of progressivity out of the system. But I know that's a mathematical fact, and ou don't do well with those.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- I've been on discussion boards for many years, and I can honestly say I haven't run into a poster dumber than you.

.

Did you spend all those years on boards insulting people?

- No, I'm pretty patient. But you have some people who lead with insults here, and my patience with those individuals has run out.

You'll find, if you watch me, that I return respect when respect is given. And it takes a good amount of insulting before I respond in kind.

 

[The Rabbi]

It isn't "barely progressive". It is either progressive and rates are based on income like the income tax. Also, you characterization of me "making all taxes regressive" is not only false, but it is dishonest. It implies I am imposing more taxes on those with less income, or imposing a tax on them in place of the income tax, when I am reducing the tax burden on all.

- The top rate is 28%, and is achieved at a low bracket. FICA is flat, with a cap - clearly regressive.

You are absolutely imposing more taxes on those with less income, and advocating a regressive tax regime.

If you disagree, then propose how you would restore the progressivity to the taxes which you removed by removing the income tax.

We both know you won't do that, so let's be frank: it is not me being dishonest here. The lady is protesting too much over there - trying to slide your proposals within the Overton Window so they don't seem as savage as they are.

You understand the bottom 47% of wage earners not only pay no income taxes, they actually get back more than they paid in. So your regressive argument is wrong because it fails to consider refundable tax credits.

- They pay no federal income taxes now - but they do pay other taxes, including FICA, for a total of 16% of their income, total, in taxes.

The rich, who spend lower portions of their income, pay less - largely because, as your mongoloid buddy Rabbi pointed out, you get to choose when to realize a capital gain, so as not to have to pay income taxes on your income until such time as you choose to.

Now Steinlight proposes removing the burden on the rich by removing income taxes, which is no tax break at all for half of Americans - and, while doing this, he whines that doesn't make taxes less progressive.

You all can't help but trip over yourselves as you spin around chasing your tails.

You want to claim that income taxes arent progressive enough and when I point out that the bottom of wage earners pay no income taxes you deflect to FICA. Which higher income people also pay.
You have lost this argument. Bye.

- Oh, my, look who got emotional.

Yes, the lowest end pays a very flat 16% in taxes. That takes a lot of progressivity out of the system. But I know that's a mathematical fact, and ou don't do well with those.

That's a logical deflection. And that seems to be all you have.
Remind me why "progressive taxation" is the holy grail here?

 

[The Rabbi]

- I've been on discussion boards for many years, and I can honestly say I haven't run into a poster dumber than you.

.

Did you spend all those years on boards insulting people?

- No, I'm pretty patient. But you have some people who lead with insults here, and my patience with those individuals has run out.

You'll find, if you watch me, that I return respect when respect is given. And it takes a good amount of insulting before I respond in kind.

Every jerk off asshole rude arrogant poster on this site has used almost exactly those words at some point.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

Perfect, resort to argument ad absurdum. Rather than address the policy you attack it.

 

[Pksimon2007]

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

Perfect, resort to argument ad absurdum. Rather than address the policy you attack it.

- I did both.

 

[Pksimon2007]

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

Perfect, resort to argument ad absurdum. Rather than address the policy you attack it.

- I'm just curious why you're jumping in here. Do you have an argument? Or do you do this sort of personal thing where you make others the argument?

Maybe it's time for a long, hard look in the mirror.

If you have an economic argument, make it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

Perfect, resort to argument ad absurdum. Rather than address the policy you attack it.

- I'm just curious why you're jumping in here. Do you have an argument? Or do you do this sort of personal thing where you make others the argument?

Maybe it's time for a long, hard look in the mirror.

If you have an economic argument, make it.

LOL! That is rich coming from you. You have no arguments except those based on ad homs, logical fallacies, and factual errors.

 

[TemplarKormac]

- I've been on discussion boards for many years, and I can honestly say I haven't run into a poster dumber than you.

.

Did you spend all those years on boards insulting people?

- No, I'm pretty patient. But you have some people who lead with insults here, and my patience with those individuals has run out.

You'll find, if you watch me, that I return respect when respect is given. And it takes a good amount of insulting before I respond in kind.

I've seen many posters come through here. Saying the same things, about how patient they can be until they are ultimately tested. All of them had a breaking point, some broke to the point where they were banned permanently. Patience is easily broken here, Simon. My advice to you is not to get too confident.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

Perfect, resort to argument ad absurdum. Rather than address the policy you attack it.

- I'm just curious why you're jumping in here. Do you have an argument? Or do you do this sort of personal thing where you make others the argument?

Maybe it's time for a long, hard look in the mirror.

If you have an economic argument, make it.

You aren't making one. You are resorting to using rhetoric, which isn't an argument. If you can't make solid points, then you make yourself the target of criticism. When you get into petty fights with others, like Rabbi, you make yourself the target of criticism. And I will jump in to whatever arguments I see fit to. You post here, your posts are fair game.

I will have to peruse the annals of this thread to read up on your argument. Be patient.

 

[Pksimon2007]

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

Perfect, resort to argument ad absurdum. Rather than address the policy you attack it.

- I'm just curious why you're jumping in here. Do you have an argument? Or do you do this sort of personal thing where you make others the argument?

Maybe it's time for a long, hard look in the mirror.

If you have an economic argument, make it.

You aren't making one. You are resorting to using rhetoric, which isn't an argument. If you can't make solid points, then you make yourself the target of criticism. When you get into petty fights with others, like Rabbi, you make yourself the target of criticism. And I will jump in to whatever arguments I see fit to. You post here, your posts are fair game.

I will have to peruse the annals of this thread to read up on your argument. Be patient.

- I'm really not interested in your personal critique. If you have economic argument, post it.

If you want to comment on my opinions of the Rabbi and his ilk, don't bother - it's not going to change my opinion. Only a change in their childish behavior might do so.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- I've been on discussion boards for many years, and I can honestly say I haven't run into a poster dumber than you.

.

Did you spend all those years on boards insulting people?

- No, I'm pretty patient. But you have some people who lead with insults here, and my patience with those individuals has run out.

You'll find, if you watch me, that I return respect when respect is given. And it takes a good amount of insulting before I respond in kind.

I've seen many posters come through here. Saying the same things, about how patient they can be until they are ultimately tested. All of them had a breaking point, some broke to the point where they were banned permanently. Patience is easily broken here, Simon. My advice to you is not to get too confident.

- I appreciate your advice. But pardon me if I don't ask for any more of it.

 

[Steinlight]

I didn't mention a regressive tax anywhere in my post.

You should calm down and learn to read.

- The income tax is the only progressive tax we have.

So you mentioned getting rid of the only progressive tax, and claimed that the revenue from all the regressive taxes would be "sufficient".

So yes, when you mentioned $1.6 trillion in revenues, those were ALL from regressive taxes.

That is simply incorrect in your claim. Both the Capital Gains and Inheritance Tax come to mind for taxes that aren't regressive.

You are being dishonest in your use of language. I don't support making all taxes regressive, or instituting a regressive tax in place of the income tax. I want no replacement. I just support removing the income tax, which is progressive. These are two different things.

- Capital gains taxes are barely progressive at all, and account for a small amount of the $1.6 trillion you mention - most of which are very much regressive, such as FICA.

It isn't "barely progressive". It is either progressive and rates are based on income like the income tax. Also, you characterization of me "making all taxes regressive" is not only false, but it is dishonest. It implies I am imposing more taxes on those with less income, or imposing a tax on them in place of the income tax, when I am reducing the tax burden on all.

- The top rate is 28%, and is achieved at a low bracket. FICA is flat, with a cap - clearly regressive.

You are absolutely imposing more taxes on those with less income, and advocating a regressive tax regime.

If you disagree, then propose how you would restore the progressivity to the taxes which you removed by removing the income tax.

We both know you won't do that, so let's be frank: it is not me being dishonest here. The lady is protesting too much over there - trying to slide your proposals within the Overton Window so they don't seem as savage as they are.

I don't think you understand what progressive means. The capital gains tax is progressive because it increases based on income level. Just because you don't like the top tax rate doesn't mean it isn't progressive.

But now, you are getting off track. We aren't talking about FICA. No one contended that it wasn't a regressive form of taxation.

I have not advocated adding a single tax on those with less income, or anyone for that matter. I have advocated removing the income tax, which reduces the burden of low income and high income individuals alike.

As I said before, learn to read what I actually write and stop engaging in shrill liberal hyperbole.

 

[Pksimon2007]

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

Perfect, resort to argument ad absurdum. Rather than address the policy you attack it.

- I'm just curious why you're jumping in here. Do you have an argument? Or do you do this sort of personal thing where you make others the argument?

Maybe it's time for a long, hard look in the mirror.

If you have an economic argument, make it.

You aren't making one. You are resorting to using rhetoric, which isn't an argument. If you can't make solid points, then you make yourself the target of criticism. When you get into petty fights with others, like Rabbi, you make yourself the target of criticism. And I will jump in to whatever arguments I see fit to. You post here, your posts are fair game.

I will have to peruse the annals of this thread to read up on your argument. Be patient.

Start with page one.