- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,458
- Reaction score
- 6
Lol. Rubio will not allow a con-man from taking over his party.
Will you support Trump if he's the nominee? Yes.
Will you support Trump if he's the nominee? Yes.
Okay so in your point is the flat tax right there. Perfect example. So you just taxed a 100k salary person 20k on their income. They are still able to pay for food, mortgage, car, toys, etc. You also taxed the 20k salary 4k. They already were struggling on rent and food. That tax put a far harder burden on the second person because you were taxing more than just discretionary income.
Think about that same incentive you mentioned you think goes away if we tax more. How much of the incentive of working goes away if we agree to tax them 20% right off the bat? It makes far more sense to say if you try to work and bring in an income, we will tax the starting part of the income low and as you progress, we will take more of the discretionary income that doesn't make or break your break-even each month.
Lol. Rubio will not allow a con-man from taking over his party.
Will you support Trump if he's the nominee? Yes.
If you look at the ration of service given compared to money paid in - those people making 20k actually pay negative taxes because the social welfare they get. The person will not see any of their 20k back - sorry if you're poor but 1/5 of my income toward the community pot is enough - and that doesnt even include state and property taxes.
You are still not addressing the extorting of successful people by increasing the tax percentage - just because someone makes over 90k, that should equate to the next dollars they make be charged at a higher rate because theres have-nots? Sorry, but the rich (both working rich and mega rich) are not responsible for the poor AND definitely should not have to pay a higher rate for each level of monetary gain they achieve.
Nice catch. That so perfectly nails Rubio's ass.Lol. Rubio will not allow a con-man from taking over his party.
Will you support Trump if he's the nominee? Yes.
Thats like 20 Trump finger lengths.Kasich squirming like Megyn Kelly does with her Trump vibrator that's 15".
It doesn't to me either. However, I don't see how your plan addresses massive wealth concentration, which is what we have today.
If 48 people have as much money as 50% of this country, we are heading for a disaster.
I want to soak the truly rich, because it is bad for the economy to have that much concentrated wealth. Not out of fairness, or to pay for things.
If you look at the ration of service given compared to money paid in - those people making 20k actually pay negative taxes because the social welfare they get. The person will not see any of their 20k back - sorry if you're poor but 1/5 of my income toward the community pot is enough - and that doesnt even include state and property taxes.
You are still not addressing the extorting of successful people by increasing the tax percentage - just because someone makes over 90k, that should equate to the next dollars they make be charged at a higher rate because theres have-nots? Sorry, but the rich (both working rich and mega rich) are not responsible for the poor AND definitely should not have to pay a higher rate for each level of monetary gain they achieve.
You mean how communist China has to lend money to Capitalist USA and make the citizens pay the interest?you want to take money from people and give it to others who didn't earn it. Thats why your guy wont win.
you want to take money from people and give it to others who didn't earn it. Thats why your guy wont win.
Thank youOff topic, but that theater is beautiful.
I don't appreciate you claiming twice now that I'm somehow poor and this must be the reason I take this stance.
We are complicating things when we mention welfare and income assistance programs which can, as you mention, put a negative tax into affect where the poorer person is actually bringing in more. This is a different topic then we were discussing before where I was saying tax the basic necessity income lower than discretionary and probably something I would agree with you more on in how much those programs should really give and how they should be managed.
I did address "the extorting of successful people by increasing the tax percentage." It's not a matter of taxing their success as much as it is taxing their discretionary income that poorer people have less to none of. Another post above shows I am much more in agreement with an idea of a 0 rate on a certain base income and then one other rate on income after that. That would be more reasonable than a simple flat tax on all incomes cause it doesn't acknowledge the discretionary income problem I've brought up.