T1B

Left Seater wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 1:59 pm

Kierland wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 1:52 pm

Left Seater wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 6:51 am

Obtain (money) in return for labor or services or interest, profit or dividends for invested capital.

What do I win?

How is the dividend I receive on stocks my grandfather bought me in ANY way earned?

Ask your grandfather. He made the purchase of the asset somehow. The fact he gifted it to you shows his generosity, but that dividend was earned.

Not by anyone alive. Certainly not by me.

EAP wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 2:12 pm

Left Seater wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 1:59 pm

Kierland wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 1:52 pm

How is the dividend I receive on stocks my grandfather bought me in ANY way earned?

Ask your grandfather. He made the purchase of the asset somehow. The fact he gifted it to you shows his generosity, but that dividend was earned.

100% correct.
The government control socialists however, want to take that money and give it to others.

And you want people to pay for police protection.

What’s next? “He didn’t rob MY store. YOU pay to have him tried and if convicted incarcerated.”

Kierland wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 3:24 pm

Left Seater wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 1:59 pm

Kierland wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 1:52 pm

How is the dividend I receive on stocks my grandfather bought me in ANY way earned?

Ask your grandfather. He made the purchase of the asset somehow. The fact he gifted it to you shows his generosity, but that dividend was earned.

Not by anyone alive. Certainly not by me.

Well then by all means donate the dividend if it bothers you. But your grandfather earned it and gifted it to you. It was earned.

Left Seater wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:12 pm

Kierland wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 3:24 pm

Left Seater wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 1:59 pm

Ask your grandfather. He made the purchase of the asset somehow. The fact he gifted it to you shows his generosity, but that dividend was earned.

Not by anyone alive. Certainly not by me.

Well then by all means donate the dividend if it bothers you. But your grandfather earned it and gifted it to you. It was earned.

Kierland's brain got wired the wrong way. He doesn't understand logic and reasoning like we do.

Left Seater wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:12 pm

Kierland wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 3:24 pm

Left Seater wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 1:59 pm

Ask your grandfather. He made the purchase of the asset somehow. The fact he gifted it to you shows his generosity, but that dividend was earned.

Not by anyone alive. Certainly not by me.

Well then by all means donate the dividend if it bothers you. But your grandfather earned it and gifted it to you. It was earned.

By a dead man. So when do we stop paying Hans Stopler for inventing the revolver?

IB, let’s say we do as you say and go to an 80% tax and basically pay everyone to sit on ass.

How long before those pulling the wagon say fukk this?

I


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

smackaholic wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 6:16 pm IB, let’s say we do as you say and go to an 80% tax and basically pay everyone to sit on ass.

How long before those pulling the wagon say fukk this?

Just out of curiosity, who do you think is pulling the wagon right now?

And do you think they are all being paid a living wage?

You need him to explain how labor works and how things get made and whatnot, because you sure don’t understand it.

Kierland wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 1:30 am You need him to explain how labor works and how things get made and whatnot, because you sure don’t understand it.

88 has forgotten more about big time economics, than you'll ever even know about.
You're small potatoes next to 88.

How’s that circle jerk 88?

EAD wrote:small potatoes

Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 6:31 pm

Just out of curiosity, who do you think is pulling the wagon right now?

Ok he top 10% of wage earners. We pay the freight for most of the rest of the citizens.

Nice English. Anyways he asked who is pulling the wagon. Not paying to have it pulled. That you two both think “money” first is so pathetic.

EAP wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 1:57 pm IB.
You just Said that heroes are represented in the media as whites, not black.

That is 100% false.

I said the majority of essential workers are black, but media representation of nurses is white. I was thinking specifically of the recent Marvel-DC image of iconic superheroes bowing to three white nurses.

Kierland wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 1:30 am You need him to explain how labor works and how things get made and whatnot, because you sure don’t understand it.

Speaking of, is the US moving production out of China or nah?

88 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 12:31 am

Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 6:31 pm

smackaholic wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 6:16 pm IB, let’s say we do as you say and go to an 80% tax and basically pay everyone to sit on ass.

How long before those pulling the wagon say fukk this?

Just out of curiosity, who do you think is pulling the wagon right now?

And do you think they are all being paid a living wage?

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/13/tax ... tatistics/

Diego, you gots some ‘splaining to do.

Why? The article bolsters Diego's comment, through examples ...

It states itself: The answer: This is a classic example of how to lie with statistics. It’s shameless but effective propaganda, which is why the people with the most to gain from it pay propagandists to spread it widely. Anyone pushing this is trying to fool you, and you should ignore anything they say on any subject.

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 12:47 pm

EAP wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 1:57 pm IB.
You just Said that heroes are represented in the media as whites, not black.

That is 100% false.

I said the majority of essential workers are black, but media representation of nurses is white. I was thinking specifically of the recent Marvel-DC image of iconic superheroes bowing to three white nurses.

You're incorrect on both counts.
The majority of essential workers are not black.
And you did say "Heroes". It was a Freudian slip.
It's why you struggle with Elvis Presley so much.
He's a transformative figure, who happens to be white.
Pure dynamite with soul, who happens to be white
White has nothing to do with his status as king.
Talent on loan from God does.
Consider this a free therapy session.
Iconic talent is once in a lifetime.
May never happen again.

Today heroes come in all colors shapes and sizes.

Kierland wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 3:42 am Anyways he asked who is pulling the wagon. Not paying to have it pulled. That you two both think “money” first is so pathetic.

Try to keep up. His response was to Holic’s question about taxes. Money was implied already.

As save the holier than thou bullshit. You already told us you require payment up front and no checks from your clients. Why is it ok for you to think money first but is pathetic when others do?

Left Seater wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 1:56 pm

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 12:16 pm

Flat tax is retarded and punitive towards those who can afford it least

IB, why do you think a progressive tax is the way to go? Do you think sales taxes and gas taxes should be changed?

Mark 12:41–12:44 ... A widow giving literally all the money she owns is more generous than a rich man matching her pennies with his own.*



*Alternative commentary on the parable of the Widow's Mite:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_ ... w%27s_mite

The traditional interpretation of this story tends to view it as contrasting the conduct of the scribes with that of the widow, and encouraging generous giving; often read with 2 Corinthians 9:7, "… for God loves a cheerful giver."

However, Addison Wright observes that there is no indication given of the widow's demeanor or frame of mind. He points out that earlier, in Mark 7:10-13, Jesus takes to task the scribes and Pharisees for a hypocrisy that would impoverish parents.

For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and 'Whoever curses father or mother shall die.' Yet you say, 'If a person says to father or mother, "Any support you might have had from me is qorban"' (meaning, dedicated to God), you allow him to do nothing more for his father or mother. You nullify the word of God in favor of your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many such things."

In the passage immediately prior to Jesus taking a seat opposite the Temple treasury, he is portrayed as condemning religious leaders who feign piety, accept honor from people, and steal from widows. "Beware of the scribes, who like to go around in long robes and accept greetings in the marketplaces, seats of honor in synagogues, and places of honor at banquets. They devour the houses of widows and, as a pretext, recite lengthy prayers. They will receive a very severe condemnation."

The same religious leaders who would reduce widows to poverty also encourage them to make pious donations beyond their means. In Wright's opinion, rather than commending the widow's generosity, Jesus is condemning both the social system that renders her poor, and "… the value system that motivates her action, and he condemns the people who conditioned her to do it." Elizabeth Struthers Malbon concludes that Wright’s interpretation is “more ingenious than convincing.” Others see the widow’s contribution as an act of radical self-abandonment in service to God, an act of strength on the part of a poor widow. Like Jesus who gives his whole life, the woman gives πάντα τὸν βίον (panta ton bion), “all (her) life.”

Quentin Quesnell sees in this account "… a rebuke and rejection of the wrongdoers." Quesnell notes that if Jesus' statement was to be seen as an endorsement of the widow's action, it bears none of the usual comments, such as "Go, and do likewise."

The account of the Widow's Mite is followed by, "As he was making his way out of the temple area one of his disciples said to him, "Look, teacher, what stones and what buildings!" Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be one stone left upon another that will not be thrown down."

Wright notes the irony that as the Temple was destroyed in the year 70, the widow's gift was not only misguided, but for nothing.

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 12:51 pm

88 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 12:31 am

Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 6:31 pm

Just out of curiosity, who do you think is pulling the wagon right now?

And do you think they are all being paid a living wage?

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/13/tax ... tatistics/

Diego, you gots some ‘splaining to do.

Why? The article bolsters Diego's comment, through examples ...

It states itself: The answer: This is a classic example of how to lie with statistics. It’s shameless but effective propaganda, which is why the people with the most to gain from it pay propagandists to spread it widely. Anyone pushing this is trying to fool you, and you should ignore anything they say on any subject.

NO.
YOU struggle with the free market system. You think it's racist and unfair. Both of which are untrue.

Diego is the same way. YOU guys have both been brought up by bullshit propaganda, and now as adults, you struggle daily.
And your bullshit take on Elvis is a prime example.
A white man with soul, threatens the bullshit propaganda you were raised on.
The left must have you sheep firmly focused on the sins of the past, in order to be a viable party going forward.

What a sad and pathetic truth that is.

double post.

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 12:51 pm Why? The article bolsters Diego's comment, through examples ...

It states itself: The answer: This is a classic example of how to lie with statistics. It’s shameless but effective propaganda, which is why the people with the most to gain from it pay propagandists to spread it widely. Anyone pushing this is trying to fool you, and you should ignore anything they say on any subject.

Good try IB, but your take along with the author is just an attempt to move the goal posts.

He brings state and local taxes into play. That is variable on where you live. People have a choice in where they live and therefore their local and state taxes.

He also uses the example of a nurse vs a sitcom star. He included the employer portion in her payroll tax rate to make it look like she pays more than she does. He wanted people who are skimming this to see a 12% rate for her. Fact is she only pays 6%. At the end of the day the sitcom star is paying much more than she is, she would pay $3000 vs the sitcom star paying $7800.

Further bringing in local taxes like property tax is silly. The lowest earners among us aren’t paying property taxes. They also aren’t using services like airline tickets or concert tickets etc as much and therefore aren’t paying much in excise taxes.

At the end of this day, after many words this author begrudgingly admits the US taxes are progressive. But he can’t refute that the top earners are paying huge amounts of the total tax burden, while the poorest and paying the least. All he was able to do was shift the percentages a touch lower. The top 1% still pays 24% of the total tax burden. The top 5% still pays 40% of the total tax burden. The top 20% still pays two thirds of the total tax burden. Meanwhile the lowest 20% only pays 2% of the total tax burden.

So after all that, all those word, and his self righteous quote you chose to highlight, he further proves the point that he was trying to disprove.

EAP wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 1:02 pm

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 12:47 pm

EAP wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 1:57 pm IB.
You just Said that heroes are represented in the media as whites, not black.

That is 100% false.

I said the majority of essential workers are black, but media representation of nurses is white. I was thinking specifically of the recent Marvel-DC image of iconic superheroes bowing to three white nurses.

You're incorrect on both counts.
The majority of essential workers are not black.
And you did say "Heroes". It was a Freudian slip.
It's why you struggle with Elvis Presley so much.
He's a transformative figure, who happens to be white.
Pure dynamite with soul, who happens to be white
White has nothing to do with his status as king.
Talent on loan from God does.
Consider this a free therapy session.
Iconic talent is once in a lifetime.
May never happen again.

Today heroes come in all colors shapes and sizes.

The original cartoon (made worse by two of them being dudes):


The pushback:


The commentary:
https://www.popdust.com/behind-the-meme ... 16417.html

Who's working from home, and who can't:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/work-from- ... c-workers/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/18/us/c ... rkers.html

The following commentary requires reading/connecting the listed hyperlinks together (including some paywalls, unfortunately), to get to the same conclusion as the opinion writer:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... s-covid-19

Why does your character hate blacks?

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 1:07 pm

Left Seater wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 1:56 pm

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 12:16 pm

Flat tax is retarded and punitive towards those who can afford it least

IB, why do you think a progressive tax is the way to go? Do you think sales taxes and gas taxes should be changed?

Mark 12:41–12:44 ... A widow giving literally all the money she owns is more generous than a rich man matching her pennies with his own.*



*Alternative commentary on the parable of the Widow's Mite:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_ ... w%27s_mite

The traditional interpretation of this story tends to view it as contrasting the conduct of the scribes with that of the widow, and encouraging generous giving; often read with 2 Corinthians 9:7, "… for God loves a cheerful giver."

However, Addison Wright observes that there is no indication given of the widow's demeanor or frame of mind. He points out that earlier, in Mark 7:10-13, Jesus takes to task the scribes and Pharisees for a hypocrisy that would impoverish parents.

For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and 'Whoever curses father or mother shall die.' Yet you say, 'If a person says to father or mother, "Any support you might have had from me is qorban"' (meaning, dedicated to God), you allow him to do nothing more for his father or mother. You nullify the word of God in favor of your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many such things."

In the passage immediately prior to Jesus taking a seat opposite the Temple treasury, he is portrayed as condemning religious leaders who feign piety, accept honor from people, and steal from widows. "Beware of the scribes, who like to go around in long robes and accept greetings in the marketplaces, seats of honor in synagogues, and places of honor at banquets. They devour the houses of widows and, as a pretext, recite lengthy prayers. They will receive a very severe condemnation."

The same religious leaders who would reduce widows to poverty also encourage them to make pious donations beyond their means. In Wright's opinion, rather than commending the widow's generosity, Jesus is condemning both the social system that renders her poor, and "… the value system that motivates her action, and he condemns the people who conditioned her to do it." Elizabeth Struthers Malbon concludes that Wright’s interpretation is “more ingenious than convincing.” Others see the widow’s contribution as an act of radical self-abandonment in service to God, an act of strength on the part of a poor widow. Like Jesus who gives his whole life, the woman gives πάντα τὸν βίον (panta ton bion), “all (her) life.”

Quentin Quesnell sees in this account "… a rebuke and rejection of the wrongdoers." Quesnell notes that if Jesus' statement was to be seen as an endorsement of the widow's action, it bears none of the usual comments, such as "Go, and do likewise."

The account of the Widow's Mite is followed by, "As he was making his way out of the temple area one of his disciples said to him, "Look, teacher, what stones and what buildings!" Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be one stone left upon another that will not be thrown down."

Wright notes the irony that as the Temple was destroyed in the year 70, the widow's gift was not only misguided, but for nothing.

Your missing the point.
The scriptures are lost on you because of the left's hold on you.

The left mocks the very scriptures you read, and they laugh at you because they own you.

We all know Jesus said that it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

However, that scripture is lost on you because you are a puppet of the left
Jesus was talking about the "evil" rich man. The "criminal" rich man.

Meaning that there are "evil" poor men and "criminal" poor men as well.

You're interpretation skills are very poor, and I assume it's due to your left wing upbringing, which has shaped your leftist views on life.

The inner struggle is due to the fact that left wing thought runs contrary to the scriptures.
You are caught in the middle, with nowhere to go.

Jesus knew that there would be poor people who will always be pathetically struggling.
It's part of the human condition.
He instructed us to give to the poor
And that's what we do. Through our individual and collective benevolence.

Individual and collective benevolence.
That's the extent of what Jesus wanted.
In no way did he want big government control over our lives.
We get a really good look at the extent, in his own words.

"RENDER UNTO CAESAR, the things that are Caesars".

Meaning that our taxes should be within reason. 10% 15% 25%
30%. etc.....
That the government should work within it's parameters, never exceeding or overreaching.
But rather, keeping to it's intended purpose.

Today, the left has grossly exceeded every aspect of it's original intended purpose, in very grotesque ways.

The point being is that the very scriptures you read, cause conflict with the left wing government control masters you serve.

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 1:42 pm

EAP wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 1:02 pm

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 12:47 pm

I said the majority of essential workers are black, but media representation of nurses is white. I was thinking specifically of the recent Marvel-DC image of iconic superheroes bowing to three white nurses.

You're incorrect on both counts.
The majority of essential workers are not black.
And you did say "Heroes". It was a Freudian slip.
It's why you struggle with Elvis Presley so much.
He's a transformative figure, who happens to be white.
Pure dynamite with soul, who happens to be white
White has nothing to do with his status as king.
Talent on loan from God does.
Consider this a free therapy session.
Iconic talent is once in a lifetime.
May never happen again.

Today heroes come in all colors shapes and sizes.

The original cartoon (made worse by two of them being dudes):


The pushback:


The commentary:
https://www.popdust.com/behind-the-meme ... 16417.html

Who's working from home, and who can't:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/work-from- ... c-workers/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/18/us/c ... rkers.html

The following commentary requires reading/connecting the listed hyperlinks together (including some paywalls, unfortunately), to get to the same conclusion as the opinion writer:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... s-covid-19

Why does your character hate blacks?

in your distorted left wing mind maybe.
As long as you continue to follow left wing ideology, you will never see things clearly.
That's your big disconnect from reality. You fail to understand that the left is a danger to humanity.
You are duped and manipulated by the left .
So much so, that you don't understand that the left wing is not liberal. True liberals cherish liberty and the bill of rights.
The left despises both.
Are you really this clueless about the left?

Left Seater wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 1:38 pm

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 12:51 pm Why? The article bolsters Diego's comment, through examples ...

It states itself: The answer: This is a classic example of how to lie with statistics. It’s shameless but effective propaganda, which is why the people with the most to gain from it pay propagandists to spread it widely. Anyone pushing this is trying to fool you, and you should ignore anything they say on any subject.

Good try IB, but your take along with the author is just an attempt to move the goal posts.

He brings state and local taxes into play. That is variable on where you live. People have a choice in where they live and therefore their local and state taxes.

He also uses the example of a nurse vs a sitcom star. He included the employer portion in her payroll tax rate to make it look like she pays more than she does. He wanted people who are skimming this to see a 12% rate for her. Fact is she only pays 6%. At the end of the day the sitcom star is paying much more than she is, she would pay $3000 vs the sitcom star paying $7800.

Further bringing in local taxes like property tax is silly. The lowest earners among us aren’t paying property taxes. They also aren’t using services like airline tickets or concert tickets etc as much and therefore aren’t paying much in excise taxes.

At the end of this day, after many words this author begrudgingly admits the US taxes are progressive. But he can’t refute that the top earners are paying huge amounts of the total tax burden, while the poorest and paying the least. All he was able to do was shift the percentages a touch lower. The top 1% still pays 24% of the total tax burden. The top 5% still pays 40% of the total tax burden. The top 20% still pays two thirds of the total tax burden. Meanwhile the lowest 20% only pays 2% of the total tax burden.

So after all that, all those word, and his self righteous quote you chose to highlight, he further proves the point that he was trying to disprove.

lefty.
IB is duped by the left.
So he cannot see logic or reason.
He only sees the left wing ideology he was brought up with.

Left Seater wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 1:38 pm At the end of the day the sitcom star is paying much more than she is, she would pay $3000 vs the sitcom star paying $7800.

10 percent of 30000 is more than 10 percent of 78000, which are both more than 10 percent of 200000.

Don't look at the number, look at the de minimus (thanks, Kierland, yes I will abuse and misuse the fuck out of this term) of what's necessary to provide food, shelter and essentials to the average person.

This is Business Insider's list of what income level is necessary to live comfortably per state (which isn't the same, but I want some sleep):

https://www.businessinsider.com/living- ... y-us-state

If you're above it, count your blessings (and your savings). If you're below it, you can still live but not as comfortably as Asian teleworker or cac trustfunder. If you're an essential worker like in the prior response, your family may need supplemental UBI.

Meaning, if the bare minimum salary to live on for a family is 60,000, taking a flat tax from those who can least afford it -- those making less than that 60,000 -- it is not civically responsible.

You may roll with high rollers, but you are not one of them. You are a service provider. You use the freight elevator just like the rest of us. Don't defend the indefensible in hopes of one day being them.

88, I'm not skipping you.

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 2:07 pm 88, I'm not skipping you.

IB
You still don't understand.
You love talking about "high rollers" ie...the super wealthy,
But they are a small minority.
You are covetous. That's a worse sin than any of the seven deadly sins.
It speaks to your inadequacies to focus on the few rich and powerful.
This is psychology 101.
Jesus said there will be poor always, pathetically struggling.
We help them to a point.
But your left wing ideology is so grotesque and twisted, that you want wealth redistribution, which is morally repugnant and ethically wrong.
Jesus wants us to help the poor.
But he also wants the poor to then stand up as a human being.

The left has distorted this to the point of permanently damaging the human condition forever.

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 2:05 pm
10 percent of 30000 is more than 10 percent of 78000, which are both more than 10 percent of 200000.

Don't look at the number, look at the de minimus (thanks, Kierland, yes I will abuse and misuse the fuck out of this term) of what's necessary to provide food, shelter and essentials to the average person.

This is Business Insider's list of what income level is necessary to live comfortably per state (which isn't the same, but I want some sleep):

https://www.businessinsider.com/living- ... y-us-state

If you're above it, count your blessings (and your savings). If you're below it, you can still live but not as comfortably as Asian teleworker or cac trustfunder. If you're an essential worker like in the prior response, your family may need supplemental UBI.

Meaning, if the bare minimum salary to live on for a family is 60,000, taking a flat tax from those who can least afford it -- those making less than that 60,000 -- it is not civically responsible.

You may roll with high rollers, but you are not one of them. You are a service provider. You use the freight elevator just like the rest of us. Don't defend the indefensible in hopes of one day being them.

Your math is not functioning this morning. $3,000 is not more than $7800 and neither are more than $20,000.

Are we back to discussing a flat tax? Not sure how this relates to your take on the debunked article. But regardless, the flat tax has those earning more paying more in taxes. I would also be fine with exempting the first $15000 or so of income. So the $30000 earner would only pay $1500 in taxes.

As for the last part about freight elevators and high rollers, I don’t follow. I am certainly not in the top 1%, but I live comfortably based on my own hard work and taking a risk in starting a business. I don’t feel bad about making the money I do. I took the risk and created jobs for others. I took the risk, I rightly get to reap the rewards of that.

double post.

LS, I agree about first 15000, but only after accounting for child support. The more child support you have to pay, the higher the exemption.

Leftist ignore the risk/reward equation.

They have to.

If they recognize it, they understand that their socialist utopia model crumbles.

To queerland, who readily admits that he doesn't deserve his trust fund, I would ask why he hasn't yet donated it to the charity of his choice?

I would also ask if he has ever paid more income tax than the IRS demands. He does have that option.

Left Seater wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 1:38 pm

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 12:51 pm Why? The article bolsters Diego's comment, through examples ...

It states itself: The answer: This is a classic example of how to lie with statistics. It’s shameless but effective propaganda, which is why the people with the most to gain from it pay propagandists to spread it widely. Anyone pushing this is trying to fool you, and you should ignore anything they say on any subject.

Good try IB, but your take along with the author is just an attempt to move the goal posts.

He brings state and local taxes into play. That is variable on where you live. People have a choice in where they live and therefore their local and state taxes.

He also uses the example of a nurse vs a sitcom star. He included the employer portion in her payroll tax rate to make it look like she pays more than she does. He wanted people who are skimming this to see a 12% rate for her. Fact is she only pays 6%. At the end of the day the sitcom star is paying much more than she is, she would pay $3000 vs the sitcom star paying $7800.

Further bringing in local taxes like property tax is silly. The lowest earners among us aren’t paying property taxes. They also aren’t using services like airline tickets or concert tickets etc as much and therefore aren’t paying much in excise taxes.

At the end of this day, after many words this author begrudgingly admits the US taxes are progressive. But he can’t refute that the top earners are paying huge amounts of the total tax burden, while the poorest and paying the least. All he was able to do was shift the percentages a touch lower. The top 1% still pays 24% of the total tax burden. The top 5% still pays 40% of the total tax burden. The top 20% still pays two thirds of the total tax burden. Meanwhile the lowest 20% only pays 2% of the total tax burden.

So after all that, all those word, and his self righteous quote you chose to highlight, he further proves the point that he was trying to disprove.

Saw/heard some interesting figures a few months back regarding tax rates in the socialist utopias that Bernie likes to point to.

They do pay very high taxes.

Their middle class, especially upper middle class, get fukking crushed. Their super rich, however, pay less than ours do.

It kind of makes sense, as everyone knows that the middle class is where the money is. The super rich simply aren't there in sufficient numbers .

smackaholic wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 4:35 pm The super rich simply aren't there in sufficient numbers .

smackaholic wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 4:29 pm Leftist ignore the risk/reward equation.

They have to.

What "equation" are you talking about?

As for my finances, I do enough Pro bono and "modified" PB that I am "putting my money where my mouth is" thank you very much.

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 3:48 pm

LS, I agree about first 15000, but only after accounting for child support. The more child support you have to pay, the higher the exemption.

Why should individual choices allow for deductions that are only allowed for some? Further why should someone who has kids but doesn’t have to pay child support not get the deduction?

This is exactly why there should be no deductions.

Kierland wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 4:49 pm

smackaholic wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 4:29 pm Leftist ignore the risk/reward equation.

They have to.

What "equation" are you talking about?

As for my finances, I do enough Pro bono and "modified" PB that I am "putting my money where my mouth is" thank you very much.

Great, I do charity work as well. I bet a good portion of the board does as well. Get back to us when you don’t require payment from your clients ahead of time. Otherwise stop with the holier than thou horseshit.

Kierland wrote:

smackaholic wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 4:29 pm Leftist ignore the risk/reward equation.

They have to.

What "equation" are you talking about?

As for my finances, I do enough Pro bono and "modified" PB that I am "putting my money where my mouth is" thank you very much.

I don’t give a fukk about your pro bono work.

The equation I refer to is that if you are going to take a financial risk, there needs to be a reward.

If there isn’t, why take the risk?

You’ve heard the saying “a bird in the hand for two in the bush”.

Wouldn’t make any sense if it was a bird in the hand for one in the bush, would it?

But it sounds like you were born with a handful of birds, so it really doesn’t apply to you.

You are the quintessential trust fund douche.

You didn’t earn it, so you don’t concern yourself with how it got there. You do feel some guilt though and you make yourself feel better by denouncing how you got it.

But you’re in no fukking hurry to give it back.

You point out how you do some pro bono work.

BFD

It’s not as if you need to get paid. Gramps saw to that years ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WTF are you babbling about now?
Are you trying to say Capitalism is the only why to get people to work?
That is retarded.
As for my money. You asked I answered and I do care where the money came from, obviously or I wouldn't bring it up.

You are the typical dirt floor asshole who thinks hard work and putting your nose to the grindstone is all it takes to make it.
You are hideously stupid.

Kierland wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 4:49 pm

smackaholic wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 4:29 pm Leftist ignore the risk/reward equation.

They have to.

What "equation" are you talking about?

As for my finances, I do enough Pro bono and "modified" PB that I am "putting my money where my mouth is" thank you very much.

Next to Mitt Romney and his beautiful wife Ann, you are a selfish uncaring piece of shit.

Each and every year. The Romney family gives 25% of their income to multiple charities.
If you multiply that over the decades of wonderful heartfelt giving to the poor and down trodden, we are talking about astronomical amounts of money.
Not to mention the giving of their time as well.
Don't ever brag about being a great and caring human being.
Next to the Romney family, you're a selfish left wing asshole.