theyounghistorian77
New Member
Enjoy
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.
Thanks for reminding me of the part of Paul's stupidity that I left out: he and his supporters are a bunch of childish, selfish, immature jackholes who want all the benefits of civilization while not wanting to accept any of the costs or responsibilities. They are in a state of constant temper tantrum about "freedom" the way a child would be, and they throw a veneer of philosophy over the top of their self-centered immaturity and pretend that it is a rational, adult position. The fact that it DOESN'T WORK is ignored, in favor of dishonest assertions that taxation is really theft, and that social responsibility is some sort of slavery.tuxbox said:ImJoe,
How much of OUR money should we be able to keep??
televator said:"Debt causes unemployment." - Ron Paul
Because thinking backwards somehow makes sense to some people.
I'm not dodging the question, I think you're being dishonest by asking it, especially since you have some very special and self-serving number in mind. Your number is fundamentally bogus, because the functional tax rate of millionaires is under 20% on average. Mitt Romney makes $20 million a year and pays a rate of just under 14%. He gave his children a "gift" of $100 million and they didn't pay any taxes on it.tuxbox said:ImJoe,
Just like most liberals you dodged the question. A single person in NYC who earns a million dollars a year will pay $455,117.74 (nearly half) in local, state and federal income taxes. So, I will ask you again, what should the rich pay in taxes each year?
ImprobableJoe said:televator said:"Debt causes unemployment." - Ron Paul
Because thinking backwards somehow makes sense to some people.
Well, it is literally thinking backwards. It starts with tuxbox's desire to avoid his civic duty, and then reality is twisted and lies are told in order to make irresponsibility a virtue.
televator said:Odd yet somehow unsurprising that he initially went out of his way to say OUR money when he actually just mean t to defend the wealthy exclusively....
And that's how financial institutions, cutthroat businesses, and the people who run them still get to walk around as "model" citizens of this country. Morally depraved, perverse, sociopathic, criminals in suits and ties.
ImprobableJoe said:televator said:Odd yet somehow unsurprising that he initially went out of his way to say OUR money when he actually just mean t to defend the wealthy exclusively....
And that's how financial institutions, cutthroat businesses, and the people who run them still get to walk around as "model" citizens of this country. Morally depraved, perverse, sociopathic, criminals in suits and ties.
Well, OF COURSE! Who do you think is supposed to benefit from libertarian financial non-policy, people who actually work for a living and need their paychecks? They equate money with freedom, and gloss over the fine print where people without much money don't get much freedom. Different rules, different system of justice, just the same old "lords and serfs" business as it ever was.
televator said:Oh Joe, why are you such a big meanie toward our wealthy masters? Without their grace I would not have contaminated food and Wal Mart rags to wear. Some day, they'll see fit to promote me, and I'll be able to afford many more things that aren't from a thrift store. I'll be more like them...our sacrosanct, wealthy, overlords. Oh what a dream to be "trickled down" on!
ImprobableJoe said:I'm not dodging the question, I think you're being dishonest by asking it, especially since you have some very special and self-serving number in mind.
ImprobableJoe said:Your number is fundamentally bogus, because the functional tax rate of millionaires is under 20% on average.
ImprobableJoe said:Mitt Romney makes $20 million a year and pays a rate of just under 14%.
ImprobableJoe said:He gave his children a "gift" of $100 million and they didn't pay any taxes on it.
ImprobableJoe said:So why don't you answer the question first? What do you think the tax rate should be, considering it is currently the lowest it has been in more than half a century? If you think that taxation is theft, then that makes your question even more dishonest.
televator said:Odd yet somehow unsurprising that he initially went out of his way to say OUR money when he actually just mean t to defend the wealthy exclusively....
And everyone does, and the very rich keep more or less the same percentage as the working poor or somewhat more than the working middle. So you're complaining about a problem that doesn't exist in the current system, which is part of why I keep calling it stupid.tuxbox said:Nope, I meant "OUR" money. We earn it and we should be able to keep the majority of it no matter what the income bracket.
So you were being ignorant rather than dishonest, because your statement was nonsense without the clarification that everyone has loopholes, especially millionaires. Find me your imaginary person who makes bi-weekly paychecks that add up to a million dollars, who owns no property, has no investments, owes no debt, has no insurance... who just gets a paycheck and spends the entire paycheck and has zero assets at the end of the year.tuxbox said:I am not being dishonest, and my "very special and self-serving number" would be no more than 40 percent. That said, I do believe that the tax loopholes need to closed and the individual needs to pay the entire 40 percent.
ImprobableJoe said:You know what I've noticed? Ron Paul supporters have NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT RON PAUL STANDS FOR. Look at tuxbox... disagrees with what Ron Paul stands for, comes here to pretend Ron Paul has a valid position. It is just like religion, when you think about it, where people just pick and choose so much that what they believe has little relation with their holy book, but they still embrace the label and the superficial aspects of it.
Don't tell me, tuxbox... you also think Ron Paul is a supporter of drug legalization. :lol:
tuxbox said:Just because you inferred that I am a Ron Paul supporter (which I am not) does not make it so. I am neither a Republican nor a Libertarian and I never vote party lines. My question to you was very fucking simple and posed that question because you brought up the 1950's high taxes for rich people which was 91 fucking percent. By the early 60's less than 600 people actually fell into that tax bracket. The Kennedy tax cuts in the mid 60's was responsible for the economic boom not a 91 percent tax for the rich. You have still failed to answer the question. I can only assume that you just want to be a fucking dick and that is fine, but I am done wasting my time with you.