Rustic
Diamond Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 58,769
- 5,895
Are you stupid??
The more the wealthy businesses are taxed, they just pass expense onto their service/products.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Taxing the wealthy more will have little to no impact on your life or anyone around you
- Thread starter Remodeling Maidiac
- Start date
The more the wealthy businesses are taxed, they just pass expense onto their service/products.
Brain357
Platinum Member
- Mar 30, 2013
- 37,068
- 4,189
Are you stupid??Taxing the wealthy more will have little to no impact on your life or anyone around you
Did you get your job from a poor person?
If you tax away enough of the wealthy's money, what do you think they will have to cut as a result?
Yet we have had much stronger economies when the rich were being taxed more.
The more the wealthy businesses are taxed, they just pass expense onto their service/products.
Are you saying we haven't had much stronger economies when the rich were being taxed more? Because we have, it is a fact.
Rustic
Diamond Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 58,769
- 5,895
Bush was just another progressive, professional politician.Hate to break it to ya, our current government is more socialist/progressive than not.Na
Na, that is what a socialist nation would do, socialism always has failed into dictatorship...If you want to consider 330 million people ticks on the ass of society, you are welcomeBeing looted is being rewarded? When you say "we the people" you really mean "we the ticks on the ass of society."
Investment should be taxed the same as labor
In Socialism, the government controls the means of production. What part of what I posted is socialism?
That being the whole reason why it's broke(figuratively and financially)
Embrace the suck
Really? So what is so much more socialist than say when Bush was president? I haven't really noticed much of a difference.
Billy_Kinetta
Paladin of the Lost Hour
- Mar 4, 2013
- 52,766
- 22,205
Bush was just another progressive, professional politician.Hate to break it to ya, our current government is more socialist/progressive than not.Na
Na, that is what a socialist nation would do, socialism always has failed into dictatorship...If you want to consider 330 million people ticks on the ass of society, you are welcome
Investment should be taxed the same as labor
In Socialism, the government controls the means of production. What part of what I posted is socialism?
That being the whole reason why it's broke(figuratively and financially)
Embrace the suck
Really? So what is so much more socialist than say when Bush was president? I haven't really noticed much of a difference.
Indeed. All a matter of degree.
Rustic
Diamond Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 58,769
- 5,895
What we spend on military/defence is chicken feed compared to what is spent and wasted on social programs.An income tax is unconstitutional...
And you'd pay for your military how without it?
Somehow we managed before 1916. There's a good argument that without the income tax we would have never gotten involved in WW I. It would have been financially impossible.
We didn't spend anywhere near as much on the military then.
Embrace the suck
Brain357
Platinum Member
- Mar 30, 2013
- 37,068
- 4,189
Bush was just another progressive, professional politician.Hate to break it to ya, our current government is more socialist/progressive than not.Na
Na, that is what a socialist nation would do, socialism always has failed into dictatorship...If you want to consider 330 million people ticks on the ass of society, you are welcome
Investment should be taxed the same as labor
In Socialism, the government controls the means of production. What part of what I posted is socialism?
That being the whole reason why it's broke(figuratively and financially)
Embrace the suck
Really? So what is so much more socialist than say when Bush was president? I haven't really noticed much of a difference.
Ok so how far back do you have to go then?
Brain357
Platinum Member
- Mar 30, 2013
- 37,068
- 4,189
What we spend on military/defence is chicken feed compared to what is spent and wasted on social programs.An income tax is unconstitutional...
And you'd pay for your military how without it?
Somehow we managed before 1916. There's a good argument that without the income tax we would have never gotten involved in WW I. It would have been financially impossible.
We didn't spend anywhere near as much on the military then.
Embrace the suck
Ok well then you need to get the job creators to start doing that and paying well. Then there will be no need for social programs.
Little-Acorn
Gold Member
- Jun 20, 2006
- 10,025
- 2,410
Yep, once the wealthy make our economy stronger, the liberals turn around and tax them more.Yet we have had much stronger economies when the rich were being taxed more.Taxing the wealthy more will have little to no impact on your life or anyone around you
Did you get your job from a poor person?
If you tax away enough of the wealthy's money, what do you think they will have to cut as a result?
And what is the result? Sure enough, the economy reverses and slides downhill.
Every time.
Brain357
Platinum Member
- Mar 30, 2013
- 37,068
- 4,189
Yep, once the wealthy make our economy stronger, the liberals turn around and tax them more.Yet we have had much stronger economies when the rich were being taxed more.Taxing the wealthy more will have little to no impact on your life or anyone around you
Did you get your job from a poor person?
If you tax away enough of the wealthy's money, what do you think they will have to cut as a result?
And what is the result? Sure enough, the economy reverses and slides downhill.
Every time.
That's funny, they were taxed more under Clinton. Then with the Bush tax cuts the economy tanked. You seem to be confused.
Rustic
Diamond Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 58,769
- 5,895
The federal government can never assess the "strength" of an economy, their assessment is always politically conditional.Are you stupid??Taxing the wealthy more will have little to no impact on your life or anyone around you
Did you get your job from a poor person?
If you tax away enough of the wealthy's money, what do you think they will have to cut as a result?
Yet we have had much stronger economies when the rich were being taxed more.
The more the wealthy businesses are taxed, they just pass expense onto their service/products.
Are you saying we haven't had much stronger economies when the rich were being taxed more? Because we have, it is a fact.
Brain357
Platinum Member
- Mar 30, 2013
- 37,068
- 4,189
The federal government can never assess the "strength" of an economy, their assessment is always politically conditional.Are you stupid??Taxing the wealthy more will have little to no impact on your life or anyone around you
Did you get your job from a poor person?
If you tax away enough of the wealthy's money, what do you think they will have to cut as a result?
Yet we have had much stronger economies when the rich were being taxed more.
The more the wealthy businesses are taxed, they just pass expense onto their service/products.
Are you saying we haven't had much stronger economies when the rich were being taxed more? Because we have, it is a fact.
Ok well we have had stronger economies with more taxation.
Rustic
Diamond Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 58,769
- 5,895
Well, stop demonizing profit then.What we spend on military/defence is chicken feed compared to what is spent and wasted on social programs.An income tax is unconstitutional...
And you'd pay for your military how without it?
Somehow we managed before 1916. There's a good argument that without the income tax we would have never gotten involved in WW I. It would have been financially impossible.
We didn't spend anywhere near as much on the military then.
Embrace the suck
Ok well then you need to get the job creators to start doing that and paying well. Then there will be no need for social programs.
It's what makes the world go around... Like it or not.
Rustic
Diamond Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 58,769
- 5,895
A century plus.Bush was just another progressive, professional politician.Hate to break it to ya, our current government is more socialist/progressive than not.Na
Na, that is what a socialist nation would do, socialism always has failed into dictatorship...
In Socialism, the government controls the means of production. What part of what I posted is socialism?
That being the whole reason why it's broke(figuratively and financially)
Embrace the suck
Really? So what is so much more socialist than say when Bush was president? I haven't really noticed much of a difference.
Ok so how far back do you have to go then?
Rustic
Diamond Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 58,769
- 5,895
The government can't asses the economy they are too politically bias...Yep, once the wealthy make our economy stronger, the liberals turn around and tax them more.Yet we have had much stronger economies when the rich were being taxed more.Taxing the wealthy more will have little to no impact on your life or anyone around you
Did you get your job from a poor person?
If you tax away enough of the wealthy's money, what do you think they will have to cut as a result?
And what is the result? Sure enough, the economy reverses and slides downhill.
Every time.
That's funny, they were taxed more under Clinton. Then with the Bush tax cuts the economy tanked. You seem to be confused.
Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,396
The federal government can never assess the "strength" of an economy, their assessment is always politically conditional.Are you stupid??Taxing the wealthy more will have little to no impact on your life or anyone around you
Did you get your job from a poor person?
If you tax away enough of the wealthy's money, what do you think they will have to cut as a result?
Yet we have had much stronger economies when the rich were being taxed more.
The more the wealthy businesses are taxed, they just pass expense onto their service/products.
Are you saying we haven't had much stronger economies when the rich were being taxed more? Because we have, it is a fact.
Ok well we have had stronger economies with more taxation.
That was a different world Brian, before Nafta and all the rest when China only had a 100,000 cars on the road... We are not going back to 1950 no matter how much the left thinks it's possible.
Rustic
Diamond Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 58,769
- 5,895
The government always have and will be a drag on an economy.The federal government can never assess the "strength" of an economy, their assessment is always politically conditional.Are you stupid??Taxing the wealthy more will have little to no impact on your life or anyone around you
Did you get your job from a poor person?
If you tax away enough of the wealthy's money, what do you think they will have to cut as a result?
Yet we have had much stronger economies when the rich were being taxed more.
The more the wealthy businesses are taxed, they just pass expense onto their service/products.
Are you saying we haven't had much stronger economies when the rich were being taxed more? Because we have, it is a fact.
Ok well we have had stronger economies with more taxation.
Their inefficiency, corruption and political nature always negates any good.
Brain357
Platinum Member
- Mar 30, 2013
- 37,068
- 4,189
Well, stop demonizing profit then.What we spend on military/defence is chicken feed compared to what is spent and wasted on social programs.And you'd pay for your military how without it?
Somehow we managed before 1916. There's a good argument that without the income tax we would have never gotten involved in WW I. It would have been financially impossible.
We didn't spend anywhere near as much on the military then.
Embrace the suck
Ok well then you need to get the job creators to start doing that and paying well. Then there will be no need for social programs.
It's what makes the world go around... Like it or not.
Our rich obviously need an incentive to create good paying jobs cause they aren't doing it.
Brain357
Platinum Member
- Mar 30, 2013
- 37,068
- 4,189
The government always have and will be a drag on an economy.The federal government can never assess the "strength" of an economy, their assessment is always politically conditional.Are you stupid??Yet we have had much stronger economies when the rich were being taxed more.
The more the wealthy businesses are taxed, they just pass expense onto their service/products.
Are you saying we haven't had much stronger economies when the rich were being taxed more? Because we have, it is a fact.
Ok well we have had stronger economies with more taxation.
Their inefficiency, corruption and political nature always negates any good.
And we had a better economy under Clinton with higher taxes.
Brain357
Platinum Member
- Mar 30, 2013
- 37,068
- 4,189
The federal government can never assess the "strength" of an economy, their assessment is always politically conditional.Are you stupid??Yet we have had much stronger economies when the rich were being taxed more.
The more the wealthy businesses are taxed, they just pass expense onto their service/products.
Are you saying we haven't had much stronger economies when the rich were being taxed more? Because we have, it is a fact.
Ok well we have had stronger economies with more taxation.
That was a different world Brian, before Nafta and all the rest when China only had a 100,000 cars on the road... We are not going back to 1950 no matter how much the left thinks it's possible.
What does income tax rate have to do with all of those things? The rich got their breaks and it seems they have used them to grow the China economy.
Billy_Kinetta
Paladin of the Lost Hour
- Mar 4, 2013
- 52,766
- 22,205
Well, stop demonizing profit then.What we spend on military/defence is chicken feed compared to what is spent and wasted on social programs.Somehow we managed before 1916. There's a good argument that without the income tax we would have never gotten involved in WW I. It would have been financially impossible.
We didn't spend anywhere near as much on the military then.
Embrace the suck
Ok well then you need to get the job creators to start doing that and paying well. Then there will be no need for social programs.
It's what makes the world go around... Like it or not.
Our rich obviously need an incentive to create good paying jobs cause they aren't doing it.
Cut the corporate tax rate to 15% and they'll have some incentive.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 74
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 22
- Views
- 461
- Replies
- 72
- Views
- 847
- Replies
- 76
- Views
- 2K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 9
- Replies
- 17
- Views
- 19
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8481
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 481
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-