dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Posts
- 5,907
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.
Venezuela, a place Obama
Yes.
No, not for me.
Yes, yes.
Yes.
No; I don't think they paid taxes on that.
On Friday, in his “Favorite Jokes of the Week” segment, comedian Seth Meyers mocked President Donald Trump for boasting about donating his salary.
Trump tweeted that he was donating $100,000 to the Department of Homeland Security.
“While the press doesn’t like writing about it, nor do I need them to, I donate my yearly Presidential salary of $400,000.00 to different agencies throughout the year, this to Homeland Security. If I didn’t do it there would be hell to pay from the FAKE NEWS MEDIA!” he tweeted.
Meyers joked that if Trump really wanted to give to the government that he could pay his taxes.
“Of course if you want to give part of your salary to the government you could just pay your taxes,” Meyers said.
‘Pay your taxes’: Seth Meyers smacks Trump for bragging about donating his salary back to the government
With Trumps Billions he could easily pay a lot more than his salary and his Golf expenses. Maybe even pay for a Wall!
I'm betting none of you have any proof he hasn't paid his taxes.
and nobody has proof he has paid his taxes...
and nobody has proof he has paid his taxes....
could try explaining the irony but you would launch into another of your word salad diatribes
Hey Dawnoday,
You do know that post World War II, the tax rate on the rich was 90%, And that lasted all the way up until Nixon, who lowered it down to 70%. Then Ronald Reagan lowered it to 20%. During those decades, the United States had the greatest economic growth it is ever had in the history of this country. But go ahead and tell me how raising tax rates on the rich so they start paying their fair share, is bad. You do know that Bank of America paid absolutely zero in taxes last year. Right??? I paid more I'm taxes than the largest bank in the United States. Do you actually, honestly think that's fair?
There is so much wrong with this analysis that it's hard to know where to start. In summary, it is such a gross oversimplification, and thereby misrepresentation, of the facts that any informed and serious student of economic history would laugh at it. I did....
You express concerns about fairness. Is it fair that 1 percent of the population pays over 37 percent of taxes while 44 percent pay nothing at all? Q. Fottrell, More than 44% of Americans pay no federal income tax, MarketWatch (Feb. 26, 2019) ("Approximately 76.4 million or 44.4% of Americans won’t pay any federal income tax in 2018, up from 72.6 million people or 43.2% in 2016 before President Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act"). As for your personal situation vis-a-vis Bank of America, I have no opinion without examining in detail both your and its financials. Did you pay more than you needed to? Did Bank of America engage in tax evasion? Without knowing such things, how can anyone judge if either of you paid what is "fair"?
Lastly, your assertion about economic growth in the post-war era is tremendously simplistic. It ignores a number of other historical and economic factors besides tax rates. Further, while what you say about economic growth is true as a general trend, there were significant periods of economic stagnation during those times, including three -- the Eisenhower Recession, the Ford/Carter "Stagflation," and the Obama Malaise -- which were in large part cured by tax cuts implemented under, respectively Kennedy, Reagan, and Trump.
Dawn you have to read the whole article:
State tax cuts adopted since 2011 have disproportionately gone to Wisconsin residents with the highest incomes, according to an analysis by the nonprofit Wisconsin Budget Project.
The manufacturing and agricultural tax credit gave an estimated $22 million in credits to 11 individuals who had an adjusted gross income of $30 million or more in 2017, according to the state fiscal bureau.
Dawn you have to read the whole article:
State tax cuts adopted since 2011 have disproportionately gone to Wisconsin residents with the highest incomes, according to an analysis by the nonprofit Wisconsin Budget Project.
That's because the residents with the highest incomes pay a disproportionately large %'age of the taxes.
Tax everyone equally and that will stop.
The manufacturing and agricultural tax credit gave an estimated $22 million in credits to 11 individuals who had an adjusted gross income of $30 million or more in 2017, according to the state fiscal bureau.
Good....it's their money they should get to spend it how they see fit.
Sorry you missed your chance to live in 1920's Ukraine.
Tax everyone equally and that will stop.
I could not have said it better, BotanyBoy!
Wow, a flat tax proposal! Except that hurts the poorest people. That was the easiest own ever.
Scratch that. Easiest double own ever.
Herman Cain, aka the pizza man, was pushing his 9-9-9 plan really hard. I'm sure you guys remember him. You were all very excited about him.
Now if you look at what a real economist says (and not one of dawn's racist cronies) you'll find that flat taxes: "But all of them end up benefitting the rich more than the poor for one simple reason: Today’s tax code is still at least moderately progressive. The rich usually pay a higher percent of their incomes in income taxes than do the poor. A flat tax would eliminate that slight progressivity."
You guys really owned yourself on that one.
I realized too that you're going to say something like "lower taxes means more economic growth!" because you're both predictable racists. The truth is they don't. Trump's didn't. It didn't in Kansas. It didn't work in Wisconsin (Minnesota raised taxes on the rich and outperformed Wisconsin).
Racist dawn/bot also pointed out that the rich by too much in taxes. Hmm well considering that rich people pay an effective tax rate is actually between 20% and 24% while earning about 300 times more than the average worker I would argue (and be correct) that they're under taxed. Warren Buffett would agree with me. Business owners get preferential treatment in the tax laws (even something as strange as meal purchases), other developed countries collect taxes at about 33% of GDP while the U.S. is 26%, and the U.S. has generally low taxes for both single people and families. I've also yet to see bot or his racist alt dawn respond to the fact that a country like Denmark with high taxes can be rated as more free by right-wing CATO than the U.S.
This is was a shockingly easy own. It's almost as if you two share a brain. Albeit one that doesn't function and is mostly concerned with making sure black/brown people remain a permanent underclass but a brain none-the-less.
Wow, a flat tax proposal!
Except that hurts the poorest people.
That was the easiest own ever.
Now if you look at what a real economist says (and not one of dawn's racist cronies) you'll find that flat taxes: "But all of them end up benefitting the rich more than the poor for one simple reason: Today’s tax code is still at least moderately progressive. The rich usually pay a higher percent of their incomes in income taxes than do the poor. A flat tax would eliminate that slight progressivity."
.
How about Hillary Clinton having a full audit on her "foundation"
"Pizza" man? Did he have acne or something?
I got owned because I didn't read it all the way through just like when I'm loggged in as my racist alt dawn.
Gotta read the post all the way through bot. Not just cherry pick like you and racist dawn do. Good job owning yourself.
Your argument that the richest 1% pay the largest percent of total taxes is true. But they're still under taxed. Why? Because the 1% own somewhere around 40% of the wealth in the U.S. yet
So what you and your racist alt dawn are arguing for is to create more inequality, to give the rich more money, and further destroy the middle class.
The argument that the richest 1% pay the largest percent of total taxes is true. But they're still under taxed. Why? Because the 1% own somewhere around 40% of the wealth in the U.S.
Equity is not a valid reason for taxation.
earned from 1984
1984? I was 1. I'll let you do the math on that.