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.
If your goal is to lower taxes for the rich even more and force those who can't afford it to should more of the burden
Do the rich pay more or less for gas tax?
Much less as a percentage of their income.
Of course. But in absolute $$ it’s the same. I like A consumption tax. Seems most fair.
It's not the same at all. The idea of not being able to afford gas never enters into the mind of rich folks.
Rich folks already pay the majority of the taxes. They may consume a lot more gas with their high priced cars and boats. They already pay nearly 90% of our taxes so how much more should they pay? 40% of the country pays nothing.
Do the rich pay more or less for gas tax?
Much less as a percentage of their income.
Of course. But in absolute $$ it’s the same. I like A consumption tax. Seems most fair.
It's not the same at all. The idea of not being able to afford gas never enters into the mind of rich folks.
Rich folks already pay the majority of the taxes. They may consume a lot more gas with their high priced cars and boats. They already pay nearly 90% of our taxes so how much more should they pay? 40% of the country pays nothing.
You're missing the forest for the trees. Those who earn the most pay the most. That's the way it's always been. Tax fairness will only begin when the bulk of Americans earn enough to actually pay tax on that income.
Flat tax works
Minimum size of government and minimum taxation works even better.
Not feasible for a country the size of the US but technically yes, that works.
Yes it is feasible to have smaller government.
Not too long ago Ron Paul came up with a budget to reduce the filthy Federal budget by a trillion a year while still maintaining a growth in defense, SS and Medicare.
Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.
We could have a great Federal government doing all the necessary things it should do for a third or fourth of what we spend now.
Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.
Well, per the premise of the thread, that "trillion" would logically go to the top 20% who would not spend it in the economy. Rich folks are already rich. They don't need a tax cut to spend. They can already spend what they wish at anytime.
What we need is higher wages. The govt wouldn't then have to subsidize those folks.
Much less as a percentage of their income.
Of course. But in absolute $$ it’s the same. I like A consumption tax. Seems most fair.
It's not the same at all. The idea of not being able to afford gas never enters into the mind of rich folks.
Rich folks already pay the majority of the taxes. They may consume a lot more gas with their high priced cars and boats. They already pay nearly 90% of our taxes so how much more should they pay? 40% of the country pays nothing.
You're missing the forest for the trees. Those who earn the most pay the most. That's the way it's always been. Tax fairness will only begin when the bulk of Americans earn enough to actually pay tax on that income.
I get it. So they pay ~88% now. How much more should they pay? 99%? I would like an actual number.
Flat tax works
Minimum size of government and minimum taxation works even better.
Not feasible for a country the size of the US but technically yes, that works.
Yes it is feasible to have smaller government.
Not too long ago Ron Paul came up with a budget to reduce the filthy Federal budget by a trillion a year while still maintaining a growth in defense, SS and Medicare.
Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.
We could have a great Federal government doing all the necessary things it should do for a third or fourth of what we spend now.
Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.
Well, per the premise of the thread, that "trillion" would logically go to the top 20% who would not spend it in the economy. Rich folks are already rich. They don't need a tax cut to spend. They can already spend what they wish at anytime.
What we need is higher wages. The govt wouldn't then have to subsidize those folks.
Everybody in this country needs a tax cut, especially the people that earned the money the fucking government taxes.
That top 20% are the job producers in this country.
I am actually in the top 20% of income earners in the US. Before retirement I was in the top 10%. Thanks to Trump I am getting an almost $3K reduction in income tax this year and I will spend it in the productive economy instead of giving it to some stupid bureaucrat to give to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal or waste on some worthless no benefit government program. If the federal budget was reduced a trillion a year and I got a corresponding reduction in taxes I would have a lot more money to spend to stimulate the productive economy.
The country is not more prosperous when the stupid government takes money from the person that earned it and then gives it to a person that didn't earn it. You usually learn things like that in Economics 101. Liberals don't understand Economics, do they?
Nonsense.That top 20% are the job producers in this country.
Of course. But in absolute $$ it’s the same. I like A consumption tax. Seems most fair.
It's not the same at all. The idea of not being able to afford gas never enters into the mind of rich folks.
Rich folks already pay the majority of the taxes. They may consume a lot more gas with their high priced cars and boats. They already pay nearly 90% of our taxes so how much more should they pay? 40% of the country pays nothing.
You're missing the forest for the trees. Those who earn the most pay the most. That's the way it's always been. Tax fairness will only begin when the bulk of Americans earn enough to actually pay tax on that income.
I get it. So they pay ~88% now. How much more should they pay? 99%? I would like an actual number.
The top 20% earn 50% of the income.
That leaves 50% for the other 80%.
How much should they pay?
Minimum size of government and minimum taxation works even better.
Not feasible for a country the size of the US but technically yes, that works.
Yes it is feasible to have smaller government.
Not too long ago Ron Paul came up with a budget to reduce the filthy Federal budget by a trillion a year while still maintaining a growth in defense, SS and Medicare.
Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.
We could have a great Federal government doing all the necessary things it should do for a third or fourth of what we spend now.
Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.
Well, per the premise of the thread, that "trillion" would logically go to the top 20% who would not spend it in the economy. Rich folks are already rich. They don't need a tax cut to spend. They can already spend what they wish at anytime.
What we need is higher wages. The govt wouldn't then have to subsidize those folks.
Everybody in this country needs a tax cut, especially the people that earned the money the fucking government taxes.
That top 20% are the job producers in this country.
I am actually in the top 20% of income earners in the US. Before retirement I was in the top 10%. Thanks to Trump I am getting an almost $3K reduction in income tax this year and I will spend it in the productive economy instead of giving it to some stupid bureaucrat to give to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal or waste on some worthless no benefit government program. If the federal budget was reduced a trillion a year and I got a corresponding reduction in taxes I would have a lot more money to spend to stimulate the productive economy.
The country is not more prosperous when the stupid government takes money from the person that earned it and then gives it to a person that didn't earn it. You usually learn things like that in Economics 101. Liberals don't understand Economics, do they?Nonsense.That top 20% are the job producers in this country.
[Q
The top 1% even are not set in stone the people move in and out of that bracket.
Minimum size of government and minimum taxation works even better.
Not feasible for a country the size of the US but technically yes, that works.
Yes it is feasible to have smaller government.
Not too long ago Ron Paul came up with a budget to reduce the filthy Federal budget by a trillion a year while still maintaining a growth in defense, SS and Medicare.
Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.
We could have a great Federal government doing all the necessary things it should do for a third or fourth of what we spend now.
Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.
Well, per the premise of the thread, that "trillion" would logically go to the top 20% who would not spend it in the economy. Rich folks are already rich. They don't need a tax cut to spend. They can already spend what they wish at anytime.
What we need is higher wages. The govt wouldn't then have to subsidize those folks.
Everybody in this country needs a tax cut, especially the people that earned the money the fucking government taxes.
That top 20% are the job producers in this country.
I am actually in the top 20% of income earners in the US. Before retirement I was in the top 10%. Thanks to Trump I am getting an almost $3K reduction in income tax this year and I will spend it in the productive economy instead of giving it to some stupid bureaucrat to give to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal or waste on some worthless no benefit government program. If the federal budget was reduced a trillion a year and I got a corresponding reduction in taxes I would have a lot more money to spend to stimulate the productive economy.
The country is not more prosperous when the stupid government takes money from the person that earned it and then gives it to a person that didn't earn it. You usually learn things like that in Economics 101. Liberals don't understand Economics, do they?Nonsense.That top 20% are the job producers in this country.
It's not the same at all. The idea of not being able to afford gas never enters into the mind of rich folks.
Rich folks already pay the majority of the taxes. They may consume a lot more gas with their high priced cars and boats. They already pay nearly 90% of our taxes so how much more should they pay? 40% of the country pays nothing.
You're missing the forest for the trees. Those who earn the most pay the most. That's the way it's always been. Tax fairness will only begin when the bulk of Americans earn enough to actually pay tax on that income.
I get it. So they pay ~88% now. How much more should they pay? 99%? I would like an actual number.
The top 20% earn 50% of the income.
That leaves 50% for the other 80%.
How much should they pay?
You just answered my question with a question. Would you mind answering my question first please?
Not feasible for a country the size of the US but technically yes, that works.
Yes it is feasible to have smaller government.
Not too long ago Ron Paul came up with a budget to reduce the filthy Federal budget by a trillion a year while still maintaining a growth in defense, SS and Medicare.
Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.
We could have a great Federal government doing all the necessary things it should do for a third or fourth of what we spend now.
Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.
Well, per the premise of the thread, that "trillion" would logically go to the top 20% who would not spend it in the economy. Rich folks are already rich. They don't need a tax cut to spend. They can already spend what they wish at anytime.
What we need is higher wages. The govt wouldn't then have to subsidize those folks.
Everybody in this country needs a tax cut, especially the people that earned the money the fucking government taxes.
That top 20% are the job producers in this country.
I am actually in the top 20% of income earners in the US. Before retirement I was in the top 10%. Thanks to Trump I am getting an almost $3K reduction in income tax this year and I will spend it in the productive economy instead of giving it to some stupid bureaucrat to give to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal or waste on some worthless no benefit government program. If the federal budget was reduced a trillion a year and I got a corresponding reduction in taxes I would have a lot more money to spend to stimulate the productive economy.
The country is not more prosperous when the stupid government takes money from the person that earned it and then gives it to a person that didn't earn it. You usually learn things like that in Economics 101. Liberals don't understand Economics, do they?Nonsense.That top 20% are the job producers in this country.
The top 1% even are not set in stone the people move in and out of that bracket.
Not feasible for a country the size of the US but technically yes, that works.
Yes it is feasible to have smaller government.
Not too long ago Ron Paul came up with a budget to reduce the filthy Federal budget by a trillion a year while still maintaining a growth in defense, SS and Medicare.
Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.
We could have a great Federal government doing all the necessary things it should do for a third or fourth of what we spend now.
Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.
Well, per the premise of the thread, that "trillion" would logically go to the top 20% who would not spend it in the economy. Rich folks are already rich. They don't need a tax cut to spend. They can already spend what they wish at anytime.
What we need is higher wages. The govt wouldn't then have to subsidize those folks.
Everybody in this country needs a tax cut, especially the people that earned the money the fucking government taxes.
That top 20% are the job producers in this country.
I am actually in the top 20% of income earners in the US. Before retirement I was in the top 10%. Thanks to Trump I am getting an almost $3K reduction in income tax this year and I will spend it in the productive economy instead of giving it to some stupid bureaucrat to give to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal or waste on some worthless no benefit government program. If the federal budget was reduced a trillion a year and I got a corresponding reduction in taxes I would have a lot more money to spend to stimulate the productive economy.
The country is not more prosperous when the stupid government takes money from the person that earned it and then gives it to a person that didn't earn it. You usually learn things like that in Economics 101. Liberals don't understand Economics, do they?Nonsense.That top 20% are the job producers in this country.
Nonsense? How many of the bottom income people, produce jobs? How many poor people have offered you full time jobs? Do tell. I can't wait to see your statistical numbers of how many poor people create long-term jobs in the country.
Rich folks already pay the majority of the taxes. They may consume a lot more gas with their high priced cars and boats. They already pay nearly 90% of our taxes so how much more should they pay? 40% of the country pays nothing.
You're missing the forest for the trees. Those who earn the most pay the most. That's the way it's always been. Tax fairness will only begin when the bulk of Americans earn enough to actually pay tax on that income.
I get it. So they pay ~88% now. How much more should they pay? 99%? I would like an actual number.
The top 20% earn 50% of the income.
That leaves 50% for the other 80%.
How much should they pay?
You just answered my question with a question. Would you mind answering my question first please?
I answered your question with a perspective you've left out.
Yes it is feasible to have smaller government.
Not too long ago Ron Paul came up with a budget to reduce the filthy Federal budget by a trillion a year while still maintaining a growth in defense, SS and Medicare.
Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.
We could have a great Federal government doing all the necessary things it should do for a third or fourth of what we spend now.
Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.
Well, per the premise of the thread, that "trillion" would logically go to the top 20% who would not spend it in the economy. Rich folks are already rich. They don't need a tax cut to spend. They can already spend what they wish at anytime.
What we need is higher wages. The govt wouldn't then have to subsidize those folks.
Everybody in this country needs a tax cut, especially the people that earned the money the fucking government taxes.
That top 20% are the job producers in this country.
I am actually in the top 20% of income earners in the US. Before retirement I was in the top 10%. Thanks to Trump I am getting an almost $3K reduction in income tax this year and I will spend it in the productive economy instead of giving it to some stupid bureaucrat to give to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal or waste on some worthless no benefit government program. If the federal budget was reduced a trillion a year and I got a corresponding reduction in taxes I would have a lot more money to spend to stimulate the productive economy.
The country is not more prosperous when the stupid government takes money from the person that earned it and then gives it to a person that didn't earn it. You usually learn things like that in Economics 101. Liberals don't understand Economics, do they?Nonsense.That top 20% are the job producers in this country.
Nonsense? How many of the bottom income people, produce jobs? How many poor people have offered you full time jobs? Do tell. I can't wait to see your statistical numbers of how many poor people create long-term jobs in the country.
Jobs are created to meet demand. Demand comes from consumers.
There aren't wal marts all over the country because of rich people.
Yes it is feasible to have smaller government.
Not too long ago Ron Paul came up with a budget to reduce the filthy Federal budget by a trillion a year while still maintaining a growth in defense, SS and Medicare.
Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.
We could have a great Federal government doing all the necessary things it should do for a third or fourth of what we spend now.
Just think how much stronger this country would be economically if that trillion was returned to the taxpayers and spent in the productive economy.
Well, per the premise of the thread, that "trillion" would logically go to the top 20% who would not spend it in the economy. Rich folks are already rich. They don't need a tax cut to spend. They can already spend what they wish at anytime.
What we need is higher wages. The govt wouldn't then have to subsidize those folks.
Everybody in this country needs a tax cut, especially the people that earned the money the fucking government taxes.
That top 20% are the job producers in this country.
I am actually in the top 20% of income earners in the US. Before retirement I was in the top 10%. Thanks to Trump I am getting an almost $3K reduction in income tax this year and I will spend it in the productive economy instead of giving it to some stupid bureaucrat to give to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal or waste on some worthless no benefit government program. If the federal budget was reduced a trillion a year and I got a corresponding reduction in taxes I would have a lot more money to spend to stimulate the productive economy.
The country is not more prosperous when the stupid government takes money from the person that earned it and then gives it to a person that didn't earn it. You usually learn things like that in Economics 101. Liberals don't understand Economics, do they?Nonsense.That top 20% are the job producers in this country.
Nonsense? How many of the bottom income people, produce jobs? How many poor people have offered you full time jobs? Do tell. I can't wait to see your statistical numbers of how many poor people create long-term jobs in the country.
Jobs are created to meet demand. Demand comes from consumers.
There aren't wal marts all over the country because of rich people.
Well, per the premise of the thread, that "trillion" would logically go to the top 20% who would not spend it in the economy. Rich folks are already rich. They don't need a tax cut to spend. They can already spend what they wish at anytime.
What we need is higher wages. The govt wouldn't then have to subsidize those folks.
Everybody in this country needs a tax cut, especially the people that earned the money the fucking government taxes.
That top 20% are the job producers in this country.
I am actually in the top 20% of income earners in the US. Before retirement I was in the top 10%. Thanks to Trump I am getting an almost $3K reduction in income tax this year and I will spend it in the productive economy instead of giving it to some stupid bureaucrat to give to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal or waste on some worthless no benefit government program. If the federal budget was reduced a trillion a year and I got a corresponding reduction in taxes I would have a lot more money to spend to stimulate the productive economy.
The country is not more prosperous when the stupid government takes money from the person that earned it and then gives it to a person that didn't earn it. You usually learn things like that in Economics 101. Liberals don't understand Economics, do they?Nonsense.That top 20% are the job producers in this country.
Nonsense? How many of the bottom income people, produce jobs? How many poor people have offered you full time jobs? Do tell. I can't wait to see your statistical numbers of how many poor people create long-term jobs in the country.
Jobs are created to meet demand. Demand comes from consumers.
There aren't wal marts all over the country because of rich people.
But it was the "rich people" who developed, financed and executed on the WalMart premise. If it were easy then anyone could do it.
Everybody in this country needs a tax cut, especially the people that earned the money the fucking government taxes.
That top 20% are the job producers in this country.
I am actually in the top 20% of income earners in the US. Before retirement I was in the top 10%. Thanks to Trump I am getting an almost $3K reduction in income tax this year and I will spend it in the productive economy instead of giving it to some stupid bureaucrat to give to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal or waste on some worthless no benefit government program. If the federal budget was reduced a trillion a year and I got a corresponding reduction in taxes I would have a lot more money to spend to stimulate the productive economy.
The country is not more prosperous when the stupid government takes money from the person that earned it and then gives it to a person that didn't earn it. You usually learn things like that in Economics 101. Liberals don't understand Economics, do they?Nonsense.That top 20% are the job producers in this country.
Nonsense? How many of the bottom income people, produce jobs? How many poor people have offered you full time jobs? Do tell. I can't wait to see your statistical numbers of how many poor people create long-term jobs in the country.
Jobs are created to meet demand. Demand comes from consumers.
There aren't wal marts all over the country because of rich people.
But it was the "rich people" who developed, financed and executed on the WalMart premise. If it were easy then anyone could do it.
Sure, because it's profitable. A good investment and only because there were and are consumers demanding what they offer. It's the bulk of America that makes our economy work. Not rich people.
Investment only makes up 15% of GDP.
Consumer spending is 70%.
Everybody in this country needs a tax cut, especially the people that earned the money the fucking government taxes.
That top 20% are the job producers in this country.
I am actually in the top 20% of income earners in the US. Before retirement I was in the top 10%. Thanks to Trump I am getting an almost $3K reduction in income tax this year and I will spend it in the productive economy instead of giving it to some stupid bureaucrat to give to some filthy ass welfare queen or Illegal or waste on some worthless no benefit government program. If the federal budget was reduced a trillion a year and I got a corresponding reduction in taxes I would have a lot more money to spend to stimulate the productive economy.
The country is not more prosperous when the stupid government takes money from the person that earned it and then gives it to a person that didn't earn it. You usually learn things like that in Economics 101. Liberals don't understand Economics, do they?Nonsense.That top 20% are the job producers in this country.
Nonsense? How many of the bottom income people, produce jobs? How many poor people have offered you full time jobs? Do tell. I can't wait to see your statistical numbers of how many poor people create long-term jobs in the country.
Jobs are created to meet demand. Demand comes from consumers.
There aren't wal marts all over the country because of rich people.
But it was the "rich people" who developed, financed and executed on the WalMart premise. If it were easy then anyone could do it.
Sure, because it's profitable. A good investment and only because there were and are consumers demanding what they offer. It's the bulk of America that makes our economy work. Not rich people.
Investment only makes up 15% of GDP.
Consumer spending is 70%.
[
Jobs are created to meet demand. Demand comes from consumers.
There aren't wal marts all over the country because of rich people.
