COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Tax the Rich?

WHat does one thing have to do with the other?

Are "progressives" the ones setting the high prices?

"Progressives" are trying to raise the min. wage, last I checked.

They're always trying to push for free tuition and/or student loans, so the dumb fucks of this world can put down their Bibles and get an education and make more $$.

They're AGAINST the "tax cuts" which are going to totally screw the middle class in CA (Blue states getting punished.)


BotanyBoy said:
It's also one of the most overpriced states in the union with million dollar single wide trailers, 12 dollar gallons of milk and 4$/gal gas.

For all of California's "progressiveness" they sure do fuckin' HATE poor AND middle class folks....elites only!!!
Click to expand...
 
dan_c00000 said:
Bot and Dawn are getting absolutely ruined on this thread. Even fucking Forbes! came out against this travesty of a "tax plan" and Steve Forbes cheats on his taxes by declaring his one chicken a farm!
Click to expand...

How? Nobody has even addressed what I've said much less challenged it.

So far all I've done is laugh at idiot ideologues who are regurgitating their partisan talking points.

Carnal_Flower said:
WHat does one thing have to do with the other?
Click to expand...

Taxes have a price.

Carnal_Flower said:
Are "progressives" the ones setting the high prices?
Click to expand...

Not setting but forcing and driving.

You can only tax (artificially incur a costs) to an industry/market to a certain extent before it drives prices up or sends it into the black market.

Carnal_Flower said:
"Progressives" are trying to raise the min. wage, last I checked.
Click to expand...

Which won't work better than the last time you did and failed to fix the problem.

Carnal_Flower said:
They're always trying to push for free tuition and/or student loans, so the dumb fucks of this world can put down their Bibles and get an education and make more $$.
Click to expand...

They don't need an education to make more $$.....they just need the government to quit putting people in jail for making money for themselves.

Carnal_Flower said:
They're AGAINST the "tax cuts" which are going to totally screw the middle class in CA (Blue states getting punished.)
Click to expand...

Yea they want to do their tax scheme to to screw the middle class for their interests........it's only bad when (R)'s do it!!
 
Last edited:
Hypoxia said:
First, cutting corporate taxes by raising taxes on working people sucks....
Click to expand...

dan_c00000 said:
Bot and Dawn are getting absolutely ruined on this thread. Even fucking Forbes! came out against this travesty of a "tax plan" and Steve Forbes cheats on his taxes by declaring his one chicken a farm!
Click to expand...

Again, dan_c00000, in the first case, you cite an opinion piece as if it were some sort of fact. Further, you even got that wrong. That is not a piece where "Forbes came out against" anything. The author, Stan Collender, is a guest contributor, as it explicitly says: "The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer." (I read Forbes regularly and, if you examine the guest columns in Forbes over time, you will see they print contributor opinions from all sides of these debates.) As has been pointed out about you so many times, dan_c00000, you screw up the facts.

Further, and I thank you for this, your second citation simply supports my point about why...

DawnODay said:
Rather than have high taxes with a bunch of loopholes, we need low tax rates with no special treatment for anyone.
Click to expand...

Overall, though, dan_c00000, as I've written before, you are getting better at this. At least you actually cite sources, unlike Hypoxia who just rants the party-line, with no detectable understanding of the issues. She laments "Killing SALT, mortgage, and other personal deductions," without understanding that for the working and middle classes, this is more than compensated in the tax plan by doubling the personal exemption. "SALT, mortgage, and other personal deductions" would then only really benefit the top 20%, (those making > ~$150,000.00 annually), because "killing" those deductions might, in some cases, actually raise their overall taxes. In short, the very thing she criticizes is what will lower taxes for the working and middle classes, while raising taxes on the wealthy. Is that not what you favor, Hypoxia? Whose side are you on?
 
23722543_322220501588607_314504554114970996_n.jpg
 
DawnODay said:
Good point. Here's a classic example: D. Greenfield, How Obama and Senate Democrats Freed GE from Paying Corporate Taxes, Frontpage (Jan 7, 2013).

This is why we need to reform the tax code. Rather than have high taxes with a bunch of loopholes, we need low tax rates with no special treatment for anyone.
Click to expand...

BoyNextDoor said:
And you are suggesting that the House or Senate bills moving through Congress do anything close to this sort of reform?
Click to expand...

I didn't suggest anything of the sort.

This is part of the reason my own Republican Senator, Ron Johnson, opposes the bill. It does not go far enough in fixing the tax code.

Meanwhile, my Democrat Senator, Tammy Baldwin, after calling for this sort of tax relief for years (while actually always voting to increase taxes), hypocritically opposes the the reform.


BotanyBoy said:
Can you not read?

He didn't suggest anything of the sort.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the support, except why do all you men think a woman incapable of holding her own in a discussion on fiscal policy? Sexist much? Or just insecure in your masculinity?
 
Last edited:
It's really not looking good for Dawn and bot. I mean absolutely ruined. It's sad really one lies about being a military vet and the other pretends to be a girl on the internet. Sad, sad, sad.

I've notice Dawn still hasn't even attempted to provide proof that tax cut for the rich provides any benefits for the people Trump told only he could fix it.

Sorry guys you're getting destroyed and it's really pathetic.

sorry-bro-but-you-got-owned-again.jpg
 
dan_c00000 said:
It's really not looking good for Dawn and bot. I mean absolutely ruined. It's sad really one lies about being a military vet and the other pretends to be a girl on the internet. Sad, sad, sad.

I've notice Dawn still hasn't even attempted to provide proof that tax cut for the rich provides any benefits for the people Trump told only he could fix it.

Sorry guys you're getting destroyed and it's really pathetic.

sorry-bro-but-you-got-owned-again.jpg
Click to expand...

You've done nothing but blow hot air. :rolleyes:
 
dan_c00000 said:
It's really not looking good for Dawn and bot. I mean absolutely ruined. It's sad really one lies about being a military vet and the other pretends to be a girl on the internet. Sad, sad, sad.

I've notice Dawn still hasn't even attempted to provide proof that tax cut for the rich provides any benefits for the people Trump told only he could fix it.

Sorry guys you're getting destroyed and it's really pathetic.
Click to expand...

I find you amusing.

The fact that you think putting up a meme graphic saying "owned" means you have won an argument in which you raise no counterpoint to the proofs offered by others is kind of cute; or at least it would be if you were about twelve years old. Is that it? Are you a kid pretending to be an adult?

You, dan_c00000, certainly are not a "man," not how I define one. A man would not feel so threatened by a woman who can hold her own in a discussion on fiscal policy, or by someone who has served his country (thank you for that, BotanyBoy, I assume you are whom he means.) A man would get a job by which he's not secretly embarrassed because he thinks it's too feminine.

As for me supposedly not providing proof of the benefit of the tax cut, allow me to quote:

DawnODay said:
Overall, though, dan_c00000, as I've written before, you are getting better at this. At least you actually cite sources, unlike Hypoxia who just rants the party-line, with no detectable understanding of the issues. She laments "Killing SALT, mortgage, and other personal deductions," without understanding that for the working and middle classes, this is more than compensated in the tax plan by doubling the personal exemption. "SALT, mortgage, and other personal deductions" would then only really benefit the top 20%, (those making > ~$150,000.00 annually), because "killing" those deductions might, in some cases, actually raise their overall taxes. In short, the very thing she criticizes is what will lower taxes for the working and middle classes, while raising taxes on the wealthy. Is that not what you favor, Hypoxia? Whose side are you on?
Click to expand...

As for the numbers:

The median household income is $59,000. Under the GOP plan, such households will receive a $1,182.50 tax cut.

The median family income is $73,000. Under the GOP plan, such households will receive a $1,602.00 tax cut.​

L. Jacobson, Would the House GOP tax plan save a typical family $1,182?, Politifact (Nov. 3, 2017). That looks like benefiting the middle class to me.

Further:

... an analysis by the Tax Foundation estimates that going to a 20 percent corporate rate creates the equivalent of 641,000 jobs and boosts income by three percent, or almost $1,700 per family based on 2015 median income. Failing to use dynamic scoring, as the TPC study does, means that the true benefits of the Republican framework are obscured. Any true analysis of the tax plan’s effect on individuals needs to include the benefits business changes have to the economy.​

A. Hendrie, Middle-class families are the real winners in the GOP tax plan, The Hill (Oct. 13, 2017). Now, I realize this is an "opinion piece," but I do not cite it solely for its ultimate conclusion. What I like about this one is that Hendrie goes through and examines various claims about the plan, shows where they are right, or where they are mistaken, then synthesizes it all for easy understanding.

I want to thank you, dan_c00000. By claiming I had not offered proof of my point, you gave me another opportunity to expand upon it and show the benefit of the proposed tax plan. Do me another favor: Unlike last year, spend a bit of time with your mom this holiday season. Don't do what you did last year and just take your plate of turkey and stuffing down to your room in your mother's basement to eat alone while you looked at Pilgrim porn.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!
 
DawnODay said:
I find you amusing.

The fact that you think putting up a meme graphic saying "owned" means you have won an argument in which you raise no counterpoint to the proofs offered by others is kind of cute; or at least it would be if you were about twelve years old. Is that it? Are you a kid pretending to be an adult?

You, dan_c00000, certainly are not a "man," not how I define one. A man would not feel so threatened by a woman who can hold her own in a discussion on fiscal policy, or by someone who has served his country (thank you for that, BotanyBoy, I assume you are whom he means.) A man would get a job by which he's not secretly embarrassed because he thinks it's too feminine.

As for me supposedly not providing proof of the benefit of the tax cut, allow me to quote:



As for the numbers:

The median household income is $59,000. Under the GOP plan, such households will receive a $1,182.50 tax cut.

The median family income is $73,000. Under the GOP plan, such households will receive a $1,602.00 tax cut.​

L. Jacobson, Would the House GOP tax plan save a typical family $1,182?, Politifact (Nov. 3, 2017). That looks like benefiting the middle class to me.

Further:

... an analysis by the Tax Foundation estimates that going to a 20 percent corporate rate creates the equivalent of 641,000 jobs and boosts income by three percent, or almost $1,700 per family based on 2015 median income. Failing to use dynamic scoring, as the TPC study does, means that the true benefits of the Republican framework are obscured. Any true analysis of the tax plan’s effect on individuals needs to include the benefits business changes have to the economy.​

A. Hendrie, Middle-class families are the real winners in the GOP tax plan, The Hill (Oct. 13, 2017). Now, I realize this is an "opinion piece," but I do not cite it solely for its ultimate conclusion. What I like about this one is that Hendrie goes through and examines various claims about the plan, shows where they are right, or where they are mistaken, then synthesizes it all for easy understanding.

I want to thank you, dan_c00000. By claiming I had not offered proof of my point, you gave me another opportunity to expand upon it and show the benefit of the proposed tax plan. Do me another favor: Unlike last year, spend a bit of time with your mom this holiday season. Don't do what you did last year and just take your plate of turkey and stuffing down to your room in your mother's basement to eat alone while you looked at Pilgrim porn.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!
Click to expand...
Temporary cuts for households, sunsetting in ten years, in order to afford permanent cuts for corporations. Fuck that.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...ns-when-the-senate-tax-cuts-sunset-2017-11-16

Give corporations the temporary tax cuts and see what happens. You can always make them permanent if they actually do shit.
 
TAXEXPIRE-2300.jpg


Hatch and the GOP are banking that a future Congress would not allow the tax breaks to go away when they come up in 2025 — effectively enacting a tax increase on millions of Americans — but pass a bill to extend these cuts.
Click to expand...

If they can't be made permanent now, how can they be made permanent later? And why does the future Congress have to do it? I think they'll have quite enough on their hands.
 
Hypoxia said:
I read of strong signs that no tax plan will arrive before the winter holidays, proving that the current Tromp-Gup regime is unable to govern. But I digress.

Circa 1972 IIRC, prominent dope-defense lawyer Tony Serra ran for mayor of San Francisco on the Platypus Party ticket. (I think it was Joe Alioto who beat him.) His program: Eliminate all city-county taxes and fees. Take over Alcatraz Island and transform it into a pricey sex-drugs-music-games-whatever casino resort, an unbridled Vegas On The Bay.

The basic idea: gov't can run profitable enterprises instead of collecting taxes. Yes, that's social ownership of SOME means of production and distraction, but it ain't much in the way of socialism. Of course a fascist (corporate-owned) state takes the opposite tack, privatizing everything profitable and leaving taxpayers to cover all losses. Welcome to Amerikkka.
Click to expand...



So says the biased rich liberal who isolates himself from the common people.
 
phrodeau said:
Temporary cuts for households, sunsetting in ten years, in order to afford permanent cuts for corporations. Fuck that.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...ns-when-the-senate-tax-cuts-sunset-2017-11-16

Give corporations the temporary tax cuts and see what happens. You can always make them permanent if they actually do shit.
Click to expand...

I know! It's deplorable. The reason is the lily-livered Senate wants a deficit neutral plan based on unrealistically low assumptions of GDP growth, again not learning the lessons of the 1960s, `80s, and `90s.

They should all be permanent. They can always raise them later.
 
phrodeau said:
The earth has warmed about 0.93 degrees already, and we are witnessing major ecological damage right now.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo3031

If humans can't manage to survive on the planet that gave rise to them, what makes you think they can survive on alien planets?
Click to expand...


That 0.93 degrees number, based on the change since 1855 (why is that year considered "normal" over any other year?), though not well supported by your citation, has been consistently reported elsewhere, so I accept it.

So what?

As I wrote before (and as the paper you cite does support, thank you) other than a few alarmists who get the most press, scientists are not expecting more than another degree rise into the foreseeable future. That will put us on par with temperatures during the High Middle Ages (think of the time of the Gothic cathedrals), and still lower than temperatures during the height of the Roman and, before that, Minoan civilizations. In short, if anything, we are heading toward a period where the temperatures will match those previously experienced during some of the most productive periods of advancing human civilization.

You write of "major ecological damage." I'm not sure what that means, other than "damage" is simply a loaded term for "change." Change is the normal state of nature.

If a volcanic island explodes killing pretty much everything on it, that is certainly a major ecological change. You might even call it "damage." Is it a good thing or a bad thing?

If a huge meteor explodes over Siberia and knocks down and kills hundreds of square miles of virgin forest, that is certainly a major ecological change. You might even call it "damage." Is it a good thing or a bad thing?

If a comet hits the Earth near the future village of Chicxulub and causes the extinction of much of the planet's species, including dinosaurs, that is certainly a major ecological change. You might even call it "damage." Is it a good thing or a bad thing?

One specie's ecological disaster is another specie's new preferred habitat. Why do you assume the former is good and the latter is bad? I'm actually pretty happy the dinosaurs went extinct. It allowed the evolution of us.

Taking that a step further, if farmers plow up a prairie and replace it with crops that feed millions of people, that is certainly a major ecological change. You might even call it "damage." Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Would it be better to let those people starve?

I used to worry a lot about global warming when people first started discussing it in the 1980's. I followed the science quite closely for a decade or two, until it became politicized and much of it questionable. By then, however, I understood that the amount of climate change predicted remains within historical norms. I stopped worrying.

Which addresses your claim that "humans can't manage to survive on the planet that gave rise to them." Stop getting your opinions from Al Gore. I have not read one responsible scientist suggesting that climate change is an existential crisis. In fact, when our species evolved in southern Africa about 200,000 years ago, the planetary, not to mention the local, climate was significantly warmer than it is today. Homo sapiens is a tropical species by nature. A warmer planet just might do us some good, as it has in the past.



 
PrincepsCyberius said:

That 0.93 degrees number, based on the change since 1855 (why is that year considered "normal" over any other year?), though not well supported by your citation, has been consistently reported elsewhere, so I accept it.

So what?

As I wrote before (and as the paper you cite does support, thank you) other than a few alarmists who get the most press, scientists are not expecting more than another degree rise into the foreseeable future. That will put us on par with temperatures during the High Middle Ages (think of the time of the Gothic cathedrals), and still lower than temperatures during the height of the Roman and, before that, Minoan civilizations. In short, if anything, we are heading toward a period where the temperatures will match those previously experienced during some of the most productive periods of advancing human civilization.

You write of "major ecological damage." I'm not sure what that means, other than "damage" is simply a loaded term for "change." Change is the normal state of nature.

If a volcanic island explodes killing pretty much everything on it, that is certainly a major ecological change. You might even call it "damage." Is it a good thing or a bad thing?

If a huge meteor explodes over Siberia and knocks down and kills hundreds of square miles of virgin forest, that is certainly a major ecological change. You might even call it "damage." Is it a good thing or a bad thing?

If a comet hits the Earth near the future village of Chicxulub and causes the extinction of much of the planet's species, including dinosaurs, that is certainly a major ecological change. You might even call it "damage." Is it a good thing or a bad thing?

One specie's ecological disaster is another specie's new preferred habitat. Why do you assume the former is good and the latter is bad? I'm actually pretty happy the dinosaurs went extinct. It allowed the evolution of us.

Taking that a step further, if farmers plow up a prairie and replace it with crops that feed millions of people, that is certainly a major ecological change. You might even call it "damage." Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Would it be better to let those people starve?

I used to worry a lot about global warming when people first started discussing it in the 1980's. I followed the science quite closely for a decade or two, until it became politicized and much of it questionable. By then, however, I understood that the amount of climate change predicted remains within historical norms. I stopped worrying.

Which addresses your claim that "humans can't manage to survive on the planet that gave rise to them." Stop getting your opinions from Al Gore. I have not read one responsible scientist suggesting that climate change is an existential crisis. In fact, when our species evolved in southern Africa about 200,000 years ago, the planetary, not to mention the local, climate was significantly warmer than it is today. Homo sapiens is a tropical species by nature. A warmer planet just might do us some good, as it has in the past.
Click to expand...
Humans were nearly driven extinct in the American southern plains in the 1930's. The Dust Bowl period was entirely caused by humans and their short-sighted farming practices. It took scientific study and government action to correct the farmer's mistakes. Thanks to science, nothing like that is likely to happen again.
 
phrodeau said:
Humans were nearly driven extinct in the American southern plains in the 1930's. The Dust Bowl period was entirely caused by humans and their short-sighted farming practices. It took scientific study and government action to correct the farmer's mistakes. Thanks to science, nothing like that is likely to happen again.
Click to expand...

Migration is not extinction.

All the same, I agree, "nothing like that is likely to happen again." Farming techniques have evolved and future climate change, natural or man-made, poses little existential threat to our species. So what's your concern?

 
PrincepsCyberius said:
Migration is not extinction.

All the same, I agree, "nothing like that is likely to happen again." Farming techniques have evolved and future climate change, natural or man-made, poses little existential threat to our species. So what's your concern?
Click to expand...
The Dust Bowl storms affected huge areas of North America from New England to Florida, Texas to Montana, all from the actions of a relatively few people.

Now the actions of a relatively small population of humans is affecting the entire planet. There's not going to be any migration from the effects of human-caused climate change.
 
PrincepsCyberius said:
Migration is not extinction.

All the same, I agree, "nothing like that is likely to happen again." Farming techniques have evolved and future climate change, natural or man-made, poses little existential threat to our species. So what's your concern?
Click to expand...

The interesting thing about humans is, whatever the problems they have, they bring them with them wherever they go. Suppose humans DO colonize Mars (which already has 'Global Warming', by the way), it would be exactly the same thing there, as human activity is what it is. Odd as it may seem, 'Man-made Global Warming' is happening on all of the planets, and man to the best of my knowledge, is still only present on one of them. Maybe the SUN has something to do with it?
 
coachdb18 said:
The interesting thing about humans is, whatever the problems they have, they bring them with them wherever they go. Suppose humans DO colonize Mars (which already has 'Global Warming', by the way), it would be exactly the same thing there, as human activity is what it is. Odd as it may seem, 'Man-made Global Warming' is happening on all of the planets, and man to the best of my knowledge, is still only present on one of them. Maybe the SUN has something to do with it?
Click to expand...
That is a lie. Don’t you look things up before you post?
 
coachdb18 said:
'Man-made Global Warming' is happening on all of the planets, and man to the best of my knowledge, is still only present on one of them. Maybe the SUN has something to do with it?
Click to expand...
phrodeau said:
That is a lie. Don’t you look things up before you post?
Click to expand...

He was obviously being facetious. In fact, as I understand it, the sun is heading toward a cool period called the Maunder Minimum, which should cause a slight cooling on all planets.

More to the point (of this thread), can you guys take your climate debate elsewhere?

I'd like to get this thread back to it's original point, which is:

DawnODay said:
Originally Posted by DawnODay
Originally Posted by XXXXXXXX

.... Taxes on the wealthy should be higher....
Click to expand...
....

Take, for instance, your belief that "[t]axes on the wealthy should be higher." There are two basic arguments against this. I'll start with the weaker of the two, which is fairness.

In 2014, the most recent year for which there is full data:

The top 1 percent [of taxpayers] paid a greater share of individual income taxes (39.5 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.1 percent).

The share of income earned by the top 1 percent of taxpayers rose to 20.6 percent in 2014. Their share of federal individual income taxes also rose, to 39.5 percent.

[T]he top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97.3 percent of all individual income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.7 percent.​

S. Greenberg, Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2016 Update, Tax Foundation (Feb. 1, 2017). These numbers are confirmed by CNBC, which I'm sure you admit has no right-wing bias. With the "one-percenters" paying 40% of all income taxes, and the top 50% paying almost all of income taxes, I assume you are not arguing "fairness" as a basis for why the "rich" should pay more....
Click to expand...
[Emphasis added.]



Comments?
Click to expand...

I've yet to see anyone come up with an argument as to why it's fair for only half the workforce to pay all of the federal income taxes (something the pending tax legislation does not fix, incidentally). The left tends to define "fair" in terms of equality. Should not all workers pay a more equal share of taxes?
 
Last edited:
DawnODay said:
He was obviously being facetious. In fact, as I understand it, the sun is heading toward a cool period called the Maunder Minimum, which should cause a slight cooling on all planets.

More to the point (of this thread), can you guys take your climate debate elsewhere?

I'd like to get this thread back to it's original point, which is:



I've yet to see anyone come up with an argument as to why it's fair for only half the workforce to pay all of the federal income taxes (something the pending tax legislation does not fix, incidentally). The left tends to define "fair" in terms of equality. Should not all workers pay a more equal share of taxes?
Click to expand...
Oh, that's easy. The tax system was drawn up by Christians taking lessons from the Bible, which says that those who contribute more will receive more blessings in return. The churches expect people to tithe, but the government only collects what people are able to pay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Americans spend $104 billion on tax preparation services
2 3 4
Replies
82
Views
345
MajorRewrite
M
BabyBoomer50s
Save Prop 13, Stop Voter Suppression in California
Replies
15
Views
142
BabyBoomer50s
BabyBoomer50s
SugarDaddy1
Joe Biden’s signature achievement is his list of broken promises
Replies
1
Views
15
KeithD
KeithD
butters
popular, 71-year-old real estate developer found guilty of $1.4B fraud
Replies
1
Views
69
Bn2f
Bn2f
V
DemetiaJoe will impse wage and price controls
Replies
13
Views
54
ll74
ll74
Back
Top