Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You go first the IRS accepts donations
Spoken by a pure purse leech (isn't word of the day wonderful!?).
What's a "purse leech?" Is that someone who pays his own way and doesn't get handouts from the government?
Nah, that would be a conservative, the type who wants to run up the credit card for someone else to pay later!
Democrats are the ones running up the credit card, or do you imagine that Republicans created all those vast spending programs?
You go first the IRS accepts donations
Spoken by a pure purse leech (isn't word of the day wonderful!?).
What's a "purse leech?" Is that someone who pays his own way and doesn't get handouts from the government?
Nah, that would be a conservative, the type who wants to run up the credit card for someone else to pay later!
Democrats are the ones running up the credit card, or do you imagine that Republicans created all those vast spending programs?
Weird the Founders used the 3rd branch then right? lol
What choice did they have once it was established?
THEY established it right?
What's your point, moron?
YOU said
"What choice did they have once it was established?"
Can't EVER be honest huh Bubba?
Yes, I did say that. So?
Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes. The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
Let's go to a simple flat tax. That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
Damn, you really don't get it. A simple flat tax allows a middle class family to keep approximately $45,000 and a professional baseball player making the major league minimum a little over $450,000; and Mitt Romney, Soros, gates billions - in ten years we would have two classes, the very very rich and the rest of us.
Simple solutions to complex issues are rarely thought out, pragmatic or viable, especially in a nation of the people, by the people and for the people.
I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country. If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay? 75%? 80%? 95%?
About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all. Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change. And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world. We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)
You keep lying even when shown REAL facts. Weird
YOU DO KNOW WHAT EFFECTIVE MEANS RIGHT?
OF COURSE I DO.
FROM A FEDERAL BUREAUCRAT STANDPOINT "EFFECTIVE" TAX RATE IS 100% CONFISCATION.
Next question, please.
.
So NO, you can't back up the posit that tax rates paid, EFFECTIVE, are about what they were. Even if I showed they dropped DRAMATICALLY as the share going to the top has tripled. Thanks anyways
We live with a Gov't that allows US to elect leaders who make LAWS. If you don't like it, try Honduras or Somalia?
MR FUCKTARD
YOU ARE CONVENIENTLY IGNORING THE FACT THAT OUR CRIMINAL LEGISLATORS USE THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO INFLATE THE CURRENCY THEREBY LEVYING AN INDIRECT TAX.
NO, I AM PLANNING TO STAY HERE, MAKE SURE THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS RESTORED AND THEN ENFORCED AND THE CRIMINALLY INSANE LIKE YOURSELF IS PROPERLY EXECUTED.
.
Oh a nuttjobber antiFed.. Name the nation without a federal reserve? Oops
WE didn't have one until 1914.
The Federal Reserve was created to the government could loot American citizens.
You keep lying even when shown REAL facts. Weird
YOU DO KNOW WHAT EFFECTIVE MEANS RIGHT?
OF COURSE I DO.
FROM A FEDERAL BUREAUCRAT STANDPOINT "EFFECTIVE" TAX RATE IS 100% CONFISCATION.
Next question, please.
.
So NO, you can't back up the posit that tax rates paid, EFFECTIVE, are about what they were. Even if I showed they dropped DRAMATICALLY as the share going to the top has tripled. Thanks anyways
We live with a Gov't that allows US to elect leaders who make LAWS. If you don't like it, try Honduras or Somalia?
MR FUCKTARD
YOU ARE CONVENIENTLY IGNORING THE FACT THAT OUR CRIMINAL LEGISLATORS USE THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO INFLATE THE CURRENCY THEREBY LEVYING AN INDIRECT TAX.
NO, I AM PLANNING TO STAY HERE, MAKE SURE THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS RESTORED AND THEN ENFORCED AND THE CRIMINALLY INSANE LIKE YOURSELF IS PROPERLY EXECUTED.
.
Oh a nuttjobber antiFed.. Name the nation without a federal reserve? Oops
OH, A NUTJOB SOCIALIST , ANTI-CONSTITUTION,
NAME THE NATION WHICH WILL SURVIVE AN ECONOMIC UPHEAVAL.
.
No it doesn'tHaving the rich pay more in taxes only helps the poor if the government spends the extra money in a wise and responsible way something they do not have a very good history of doing.
A WELFARE STATE = GOVERNMENT BUY THE PEOPLE
It is just helping people who need help
Wrong. It's organized plunder and crony capitalism.
A civilized society raising revenue is not plunder
What choice did they have once it was established?
THEY established it right?
What's your point, moron?
YOU said
"What choice did they have once it was established?"
Can't EVER be honest huh Bubba?
Yes, I did say that. So?
Moron, what choice did the ones who created the SCOTUS have? lol
I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country. If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay? 75%? 80%? 95%?
About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all. Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change. And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world. We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)
So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody? After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?
For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none? Or maybe you are an entertainment nut. You have four televisions in your home. Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none? How many cars do you own?
Does this sound ridiculous? Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country. It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money. Why is that?
How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law. It's really none of governments business.
Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes. The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
Let's go to a simple flat tax. That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
We could go to a simple progressive tax that would be fairer.
I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country. If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay? 75%? 80%? 95%?
About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all. Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change. And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world. We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)
So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody? After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?
For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none? Or maybe you are an entertainment nut. You have four televisions in your home. Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none? How many cars do you own?
Does this sound ridiculous? Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country. It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money. Why is that?
How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law. It's really none of governments business.
THEY established it right?
What's your point, moron?
YOU said
"What choice did they have once it was established?"
Can't EVER be honest huh Bubba?
Yes, I did say that. So?
Moron, what choice did the ones who created the SCOTUS have? lol
I'm not sure that I (or anyone) follow your line of reasoning. Before they ratified the Constitution, they had a choice. After they ratified it, they had no choice, short of secession.
Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes. The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
Let's go to a simple flat tax. That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
We could go to a simple progressive tax that would be fairer.
Consumption tax. Incentivize more purchases, no income tax, no property tax
Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes. The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
Let's go to a simple flat tax. That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
We could go to a simple progressive tax that would be fairer.
Consumption tax. Incentivize more purchases, no income tax, no property tax
This morning on Fox News Sunday, Dr. Ben Carson provided an example of the kind of misinformation that pollutes this (and every) campaign. While promoting his desire for a flat tax, Dr. Carson pointed out how people feel that having higher income taxpayers pay at a higher rate is wrong.
"That's socialism", he said, and I quote.
What the fuck? Well no, Dr. Carson, a graduated income tax system is not Socialism. Socialism is not about the structure of the tax system.
But no doubt, many were in full agreement with his characterization. So is he ignorant, or just playing to the crowd? And why would anyone buy that statement?
.
A graduated income tax was one of the items Karl Marx listed in his platform to achieve communism.
Apparently Carson is smarter than you.
I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country. If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay? 75%? 80%? 95%?
About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all. Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change. And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world. We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)
So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody? After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?
For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none? Or maybe you are an entertainment nut. You have four televisions in your home. Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none? How many cars do you own?
Does this sound ridiculous? Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country. It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money. Why is that?
How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law. It's really none of governments business.
Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say?
Shall we call it socialism when govenment uses tax policy and regulation to share the nation's wealth to deliberately cause some level of equity? If so, America has lost touch with vital parts of the original foundation of American democracy. Men such as Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, William Gates Sr. and others would disagree heartily with modern conservative claims of "socialism." In fact, according to these men, equitable distribution of wealth in America is one of the founding principals of American democracy.
.....The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster
The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments. Adam Smith
Death, Taxes, and the American Founders
So, as with other political issues — even independence itself — Revolutionary-era Americans held a range of views on how much property people should be allowed to pass on to their children. But one thing is certain: They hoped to prevent the emergence of a small group of people with perpetual wealth and thus perpetual privilege. Keeping a robust estate tax today would further that goal, and it would be consistent with a long-standing tradition of American democracy.
Death Taxes and the American Founders History News Service
Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.
With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."
BullshitFine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxesWhat do you mean we had no debt.......and tax cuts do pay for themselves, but the politicians always, always spend more than we take in...it is spending that is the problem, not the amount we take in....stop the spending and the problem goes away.
Idiots like you have kicked and screamed every time it has been tried.
Agree to a necessary spending level and THEN set your tax rate to cover it.
Starving the beast does not work
Oh really? What happened during the "sequester"?" A minute cut in spending, that was even proposed by Obama, and numskulls like you acted like it was the end of the world.
Yeah I thought the sky was supposed to fall due to sequester what happened?
This morning on Fox News Sunday, Dr. Ben Carson provided an example of the kind of misinformation that pollutes this (and every) campaign. While promoting his desire for a flat tax, Dr. Carson pointed out how people feel that having higher income taxpayers pay at a higher rate is wrong.
"That's socialism", he said, and I quote.
What the fuck? Well no, Dr. Carson, a graduated income tax system is not Socialism. Socialism is not about the structure of the tax system.
But no doubt, many were in full agreement with his characterization. So is he ignorant, or just playing to the crowd? And why would anyone buy that statement?
.
A graduated income tax was one of the items Karl Marx listed in his platform to achieve communism.
Apparently Carson is smarter than you.
"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state." Noted Socialist Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
"The movement toward progressive taxation of wealth and of income has accompanied the growing diversification and interrelation of effort which marks our industrial society. Wealth in the modern world does not come merely from individual effort; it results from a combination of individual effort and of the manifold uses to which the community puts that effort. The individual does not create the product of his industry with his own hands; he utilizes the many processes and forces of mass production to meet the demands of a national and international market ... Social unrest and a deepening sense of unfairness are dangers to our national life which we must minimize by rigorous methods. People know that vast personal incomes come not only through the effort or ability or luck of those who receive them, but also because of the opportunities for advantage which Government itself contributes. Therefore, the duty rests upon the Government to restrict such incomes by very high taxes."
-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 32nd President
Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes. The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
Let's go to a simple flat tax. That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
We could go to a simple progressive tax that would be fairer.
Consumption tax. Incentivize more purchases, no income tax, no property tax
A consumption tax discourages purchases.
