What Is Wrong With America ?

[Contumacious]

Bullshit. The sixteenth amendment was sold as a "soak the rich scam"

Incomes below $3500 CONSTITUTIONAL GOLD DOLLARS were exempted.

A CONSTITUTIONAL GOLD DOLLAR was worth about 25 of today's federal reserve notes. So that means that the sixteenth amendment should not apply to those making less than

3500 x 25 = 87500 federal reserve notes.

.

At the time of the 16th, it was a nominal tax.

Under FDR the income tax morphed into a very different beast and hundreds of thousands of exemptions were added to ensure that the truly wealthy were not affected.

Remember we are being governed by a continuing criminal enterprise so you must be forever vigilant.

In 1942 FDR imposed a direct tax - THE VICTORY TAX - on wages in order to pay for WWII.

Fedgov has the authority to impose a direct tax on income in case of emergencies for only TWO YEARS.

Unfortunately the motherfuckers kept the tax and no one has objected or the objections have fallen on deaf ears.

read more here:

CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERV. CO.v. UNITED STATES, 435 U.S. 21 (1978)

.

 

[protectionist]

The rich people I know use jets, not RVs. As for trailers and watercraft, my personal experience is that they are owned by rednecks.

Probably true (depending on the type and size of watercraft). Point is, none of these things are owned by very large %s of the American people, and as such are bad examples to try to promote overtaxation.

There is no such thing as a bad example to show over taxation if it actually shows over taxation.

The examples shown were ridiculous attempt to show overtaxation, where there is no overtaxation. We currently are in one of the lowest taxation periods in out history, which is why so many of the American people support raising taxes on those in the top income bracket (starting with the marginal individual tax - currently only 39.6%)

 

[Contumacious]

Probably true (depending on the type and size of watercraft). Point is, none of these things are owned by very large %s of the American people, and as such are bad examples to try to promote overtaxation.

There is no such thing as a bad example to show over taxation if it actually shows over taxation.

The examples shown were ridiculous attempt to show overtaxation, where there is no overtaxation. We currently are in one of the lowest taxation periods in out history, which is why so many of the American people support raising taxes on those in the top income bracket (starting with the marginal individual tax - currently only 39.6%)

Excuse me Dingle Berry, Sir:

The continuing criminal enterprise has found out that increasing taxes is taboo. So they get the chairman of the federal reserve board to inflate the fuck out of the currency because they know that folks like "protectionist" don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

.

 

[protectionist]

No need to revise anything. I'm cool with my original. If you're not, that YOUR problem. Touched a raw nerve, eh ? Apparently you're part of that wealthiest 20% of US households. Well, you can just be glad you've got all that money, and take a good look at how you got it (because someday the man upstairs will be looking at it too)

PS - I don't live in govt housing, and I wouldn't pay property tax or own my own home again if you paid me. As a renter, I don't lower myself to fixing my own residence. I let the help do it, while I swim in one of my 2 pools, relax in my jacuzzi, play a couple of sets on my tennis court, go for a walk or bike through my nature trail, use my exercise room, or just have a drink in my extra large clubhouse, when I don't feel like shooting some baskets on my basketball court.

I haven't seen so many things claimed by a person that didn't own shit in I don't know how long. You pay porperty taxes, maintenance and insurance through your rent so don't play so damned ignorant. Hell from the way you've represented yourself in this thread I'm surprised they even let you outside any more, I damn sure hope you don't drive.

The one part you got right is where you said you "haven't seen". So you've never seen an apartment complex that has all these things, where people pay rent ? Lots of them around town. And no I don't pay property tax "through" anything. I just pay my rent at the going rate.
I do pay for renter's insurance, but seperately, not through my rent. Of the 3, that one you almost got right.

And the way I've represented myself in this thread, is the same way that 76% of the American people represented themselves in the recent Gallup poll, where they said they want tax raises on the rich. Eventually, politics gives way to the wishes of the people. As a conservative, I'd hate to see the Democrats gain power over both houses of Congress + the White House, because I despise their positions on Islamization, immigration, affiramative action, death penalty, et al, but it would get the tax system restored to a normal condition.

 

[protectionist]

The wealthiest 20% of the US households are set to receive about $6.9 Trillion in personal income this year, half of all national personal income. Their average tax burden is around 26%, or about $1.7 Trillion. This leaves them with $5.2 Trillion of disposable income each year.

The current budget deficit is around $560 Billion, or about 10% of the disposable income of the wealthiest. They could be taxed enough to eliminate the budget deficit and still receive 90% of their income, with the other 80% of Americans not paying a dime.

If you want stats they are at census.gov and bea.gov

U.S. budget deficit plunging in fiscal 2014 - Capitol Report - MarketWatch

Total Personal Income U.S. and All States

Your initial claim was that raising the rate on the top 10% by less than 5% would allow us to cut the tax rate for everyone else in the country to nothing. When I told you you were wrong you challenged me to do the math, and claimed that, when you did it, it proved that would be a revenue neutral solution.

You lied, admit it.

By the way, are you aware that the top 20% of wage earners includes a hefty chunk of what is colloquially known as the middle class? I don't feel like going back and reading the entire thread, but I will bet that more than one person has told you that any tax hike on the rich always hits the middle class. In your attempt to defend your lie you proved them right.

Congratulations.

Remember when you told me that "In a word" wasn't an argument? Don't you wish you had just kept your ignorant ass mouth shut?

In a word, you, and everyone else who can't do simple math, is what is wrong with this country. You cannot support the welfare state by taxing the rich. You cannot run the government by pretending you can. Anyone with basic math skills knows this.

your getting protectionist mixed up with me......I didnt lie.....Thats how I remembered it...and Im still not convinced I was wrong,.... I also remember hearing/reading that the way the stats are kept/recorded changed in the meantime....probably to obscure some of the numbers.

Protectionist, one number you state which I think might be an error is that the wealthiest pay 26% the latest numbers I saw show an actual rate of 20%

That part of my quote is the oldest reference dating back maybe 5 years. Then it was 24-26%, and I saw a new one claiming 20-23%, so it's possible for a margin of error there to be only 1% off.

 

[protectionist]

since the beginning of time huh

I ran the numbers again on a later set of data with different results so my memmory may have been somewaht faulty

it would take a 10% increase on the top 20% to make up for the bottom 80% paying ZERO income tax.

I love it when you Communists just make shit up out of thin air.

A 100% tax on the top 20% of wages would not even pay off the national debt.

John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really. - Forbes

There are two types of leftists;

Crooks

and the abysmally stupid.

Good news, I don't think you're a crook.

Sure it would, over the course of some years. Can't expect it to happen instantaneously, you know. The debt didn't happen instanteously either, did it ? And the tax $$ deprivation has been going on, ever since the movie star became president, and drastically lowered the top marginal tax to 70%, and eventually down to 28%. 34 years there.

 

[protectionist]

Allow me to offer one solution. How about having the Presidency, Congress, Court judges, and Agency officials not be paid (Anything). Have all the jobs done on a volunteer basis, and stop all money input in elections. And all one term only (eliminating the drive to be re-elected)

That's a recipe for corruption. Have everyone, from the President to the lowest municipal court judge bought off.

Buying public officials off can happen regardless of what officials get paid. Also, the post you quoted was corrected later to read moderate pay for them.

 

[protectionist]

Here in Florida, (and many other states) NO they don't pay a state income tax, and NO they don't pay a local income tax, and NO, the great majority don't pay toll bridge taxes, watercraft registration taxes, trailer registration tax, toll tunnel tax, RV tax, and many of the taxes you've dredged up here.

Fact is, very few people pay all these taxes (or even a fraction of them). I haven't paid a bridge toll since 1989, when moved from California to Florida. Haven't paid a tunnel toll since 1977 (if I even paid one then). I don't own an RV, a watercraft, a trailer, or many of the other ding-dong things on your list, and I haven't paid a sales tax on a vehicle since 2009, and won't again for a few more years. I'm also a renter. Don't pay property tax, and I'm sure not looking to get married again, any time soon.

You wasted perfectly good post space. Hell of a nice try though.

Income tax is not intended to tax the wealthy.

Income tax targets the middle class. The very wealthy accrue wealth through investments and appreciation of assets, particularly real property.

When the leadership of the left scream "Punish the rich," what they really seek is to assault the middle class, those who depend on income to maintain a lifestyle.

The petty thugs who rule your party have no desire to harm the truly rich, the George Soros, Andy Grove, Jeff Immelt, and Hollywood crowd. No, why they seek is to pull the ladder up to keep the middle class from accumulating wealth.

Though you lack the intellect to grasp it, what you are really demanding is that we PROTECT the wealthy elite from competition from an upwardly mobile middle class. This is the agenda of the shameful democrats, to crush the middle in order to protect an entrenched elite. Why do you think the obscenely rich are overwhelmingly democrats? Because the democrats serve them.

My party ? I don't have a party. I've been a registered Independent since 2003.

As for your lamebrain ideas about the obscenely rich and Democrats, they are too ludicrous to even deserve the dignity of a response. What I really demand is what I really demand. Same as what 3/4 of the American people demand. Tax increases on the rich. As for income tax targets, it targets whomever people demand that it targets. Right now, that would be the rich. Save your con jobby concoctions for your 1/2 drunk pals in the bar.

 

[protectionist]

Especially since a 100% tax on the top 20% would bring in zero revenue. People would simply stop making that much money.

I bumbled the Stossel link, but he makes the point that if the Obamunists were to confiscate 100% of the assets of the top 10% of the nation, it would offer only $5.2 trillion, less than a third of the Obama debt.

So in almost 3 years the debt could be wiped out ? Not bad. Quite fast in fact. A lot less than the 34 years that we've been in this low tax era.

 

[protectionist]

There is no such thing as a bad example to show over taxation if it actually shows over taxation.

The examples shown were ridiculous attempt to show overtaxation, where there is no overtaxation. We currently are in one of the lowest taxation periods in out history, which is why so many of the American people support raising taxes on those in the top income bracket (starting with the marginal individual tax - currently only 39.6%)

Excuse me Dingle Berry, Sir:

The continuing criminal enterprise has found out that increasing taxes is taboo. So they get the chairman of the federal reserve board to inflate the fuck out of the currency because they know that folks like "protectionist" don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

I knew they shouldn't have legalized pot. And don't forget to call that designated driver. Pheeeeeww!!

How does increasing taxes (on the rich) become "taboo" when 3/4 of the American people support it ? You can answer tomorrow, when you're feeling better.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sure it would, over the course of some years. Can't expect it to happen instantaneously, you know. The debt didn't happen instanteously either, did it ? And the tax $$ deprivation has been going on, ever since the movie star became president, and drastically lowered the top marginal tax to 70%, and eventually down to 28%. 34 years there.

The reason you are a leftist, is because even simple concepts elude you....

If we stole the $5.2 trillion held by the top 10%, do you think they would have another $5.2 trillion for you to steal next year? Do you REALLY believe that?

 

[Avatar4321]

Especially since a 100% tax on the top 20% would bring in zero revenue. People would simply stop making that much money.

I bumbled the Stossel link, but he makes the point that if the Obamunists were to confiscate 100% of the assets of the top 10% of the nation, it would offer only $5.2 trillion, less than a third of the Obama debt.

So in almost 3 years the debt could be wiped out ? Not bad. Quite fast in fact. A lot less than the 34 years that we've been in this low tax era.

Except you could only do that one time. Because the following year there would be no one left with assets to confiscate anything from.

 

[Immanuel]

The wealthiest 20% of the US households are set to receive about $6.9 Trillion in personal income this year, half of all national personal income. Their average tax burden is around 26%, or about $1.7 Trillion. This leaves them with $5.2 Trillion of disposable income each year.

The current budget deficit is around $560 Billion, or about 10% of the disposable income of the wealthiest. They could be taxed enough to eliminate the budget deficit and still receive 90% of their income, with the other 80% of Americans not paying a dime.

If you want stats they are at census.gov and bea.gov

U.S. budget deficit plunging in fiscal 2014 - Capitol Report - MarketWatch

Total Personal Income U.S. and All States

Your initial claim was that raising the rate on the top 10% by less than 5% would allow us to cut the tax rate for everyone else in the country to nothing. When I told you you were wrong you challenged me to do the math, and claimed that, when you did it, it proved that would be a revenue neutral solution.

You lied, admit it.

By the way, are you aware that the top 20% of wage earners includes a hefty chunk of what is colloquially known as the middle class? I don't feel like going back and reading the entire thread, but I will bet that more than one person has told you that any tax hike on the rich always hits the middle class. In your attempt to defend your lie you proved them right.

Congratulations.

Remember when you told me that "In a word" wasn't an argument? Don't you wish you had just kept your ignorant ass mouth shut?

In a word, you, and everyone else who can't do simple math, is what is wrong with this country. You cannot support the welfare state by taxing the rich. You cannot run the government by pretending you can. Anyone with basic math skills knows this.

your getting protectionist mixed up with me......I didnt lie.....Thats how I remembered it...and Im still not convinced I was wrong,.... I also remember hearing/reading that the way the stats are kept/recorded changed in the meantime....probably to obscure some of the numbers.

Protectionist, one number you state which I think might be an error is that the wealthiest pay 26% the latest numbers I saw show an actual rate of 20%

We all makes mistakes. Making a mistake does not mean you are a liar.

There are some on this site who do not understand that concept; not saying QW is one of those.

 

[Contumacious]

The examples shown were ridiculous attempt to show overtaxation, where there is no overtaxation. We currently are in one of the lowest taxation periods in out history, which is why so many of the American people support raising taxes on those in the top income bracket (starting with the marginal individual tax - currently only 39.6%)

Excuse me Dingle Berry, Sir:

The continuing criminal enterprise has found out that increasing taxes is taboo. So they get the chairman of the federal reserve board to inflate the fuck out of the currency because they know that folks like "protectionist" don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

I knew they shouldn't have legalized pot. And don't forget to call that designated driver. Pheeeeeww!!

How does increasing taxes (on the rich) become "taboo" when 3/4 of the American people support it ? You can answer tomorrow, when you're feeling better.

Excuse me again, Mr Dingle Berry, Sir:

The congresscritters know that a tax on the rich will simply be passed on to the lower classes. Or their wealth will be sent to New Zealand or any country which is not controlled by criminals.

.

 

[protectionist]

Sure it would, over the course of some years. Can't expect it to happen instantaneously, you know. The debt didn't happen instanteously either, did it ? And the tax $$ deprivation has been going on, ever since the movie star became president, and drastically lowered the top marginal tax to 70%, and eventually down to 28%. 34 years there.

The reason you are a leftist, is because even simple concepts elude you....

If we stole the $5.2 trillion held by the top 10%, do you think they would have another $5.2 trillion for you to steal next year? Do you REALLY believe that?

You wouldn't be stealing it any more than they stole it, to have it in the first place (in many cases, the taxation would be less of a steal) As for what they'll have the next year, when Clinton raised taxes on the rich, there was lots of money there to be taxed, after that (year after year) Is simple history eluding you ?

 

[protectionist]

I bumbled the Stossel link, but he makes the point that if the Obamunists were to confiscate 100% of the assets of the top 10% of the nation, it would offer only $5.2 trillion, less than a third of the Obama debt.

So in almost 3 years the debt could be wiped out ? Not bad. Quite fast in fact. A lot less than the 34 years that we've been in this low tax era.

Except you could only do that one time. Because the following year there would be no one left with assets to confiscate anything from.

Too late. Uncensored2008 just beat you to it. He said the same thing in the post (# 531) just before you. And I answered both of you in Post # 535.

 

[protectionist]

[/B]

Excuse me Dingle Berry, Sir:

The continuing criminal enterprise has found out that increasing taxes is taboo. So they get the chairman of the federal reserve board to inflate the fuck out of the currency because they know that folks like "protectionist" don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

I knew they shouldn't have legalized pot. And don't forget to call that designated driver. Pheeeeeww!!

How does increasing taxes (on the rich) become "taboo" when 3/4 of the American people support it ? You can answer tomorrow, when you're feeling better.

Excuse me again, Mr Dingle Berry, Sir:

The congresscritters know that a tax on the rich will simply be passed on to the lower classes. Or their wealth will be sent to New Zealand or any country which is not controlled by criminals.

I guess 3000 could probably be the approximate number of times I've shot both of those notions down. Sending wealth to other countries isn't done 1, 2, 3. Maybe you'd like to elaborate further, and then we could talk about how it 1) isn't economical to do and 2) legislation can be enacted to mitigate it.

As for "passed on to the lower classes". Yeah ? Elaborate please.

 

[dblack]

Here is the angel who will organize society for us >> ME....

And you're claiming you're not an authoritarian?

I said I would ORGANIZE, not control. Buy a dictionary.

Well, the policies you've been arguing for in the thread have mostly involved government mandates, so I was going with that. If you're simply referring to voluntary organization efforts, you have my apologies, and I wish you well. It's coercive state programs I'm opposed to.

 

[protectionist]

And you're claiming you're not an authoritarian?

I said I would ORGANIZE, not control. Buy a dictionary.

Well, the policies you've been arguing for in the thread have mostly involved government mandates, so I was going with that. If you're simply referring to voluntary organization efforts, you have my apologies, and I wish you well. It's coercive state programs I'm opposed to.

What did I say that could be conceived of as "coercive" ? (noting that all come from the wishes of the American people)

Actually, offhand, I can only think of a few policies that are coercive and unsupported by the public, and I've disliked all of them >> PIP insurance, ACA (the coerciveness of it), and the military draft.

 

[Contumacious]

I knew they shouldn't have legalized pot. And don't forget to call that designated driver. Pheeeeeww!!

How does increasing taxes (on the rich) become "taboo" when 3/4 of the American people support it ? You can answer tomorrow, when you're feeling better.

Excuse me again, Mr Dingle Berry, Sir:

The congresscritters know that a tax on the rich will simply be passed on to the lower classes. Or their wealth will be sent to New Zealand or any country which is not controlled by criminals.

I guess 3000 could probably be the approximate number of times I've shot both of those notions down. Sending wealth to other countries isn't done 1, 2, 3. Maybe you'd like to elaborate further, and then we could talk about how it 1) isn't economical to do and 2) legislation can be enacted to mitigate it.

As for "passed on to the lower classes". Yeah ? Elaborate please.

Eduardo Saverin, the billionaire co- founder of Facebook Inc. (FB), renounced his U.S. citizenship before an initial public offering that values the social network at as much as $96 billion, a move that may reduce his tax bill.

.