The 11th Republican Presidential Debate 2016 by FOX News [March 3][6PM PST][9PM EST]

Lol. Rubio will not allow a con-man from taking over his party.

Will you support Trump if he's the nominee? Yes.
 
Rubio, has really brought the zingers the last 2 debates.
 
Lead Salad said:
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.
Click to expand...


If you look at the ratio 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.

however - if a dual flat system was suggested in which the person making 20k was completely exempt as long as whatever my income was remains at 20 - thats a reasonable compromise
 
Last edited:
Diamond Jim said:
Lol. Rubio will not allow a con-man from taking over his party.

Will you support Trump if he's the nominee? Yes.
Click to expand...

lol me and my coworkers talked about this when he went around saying con-man, I said we'll see who is a con-man when you have to support the nominee because you pledged to
 
JudoThrowFiasco said:
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.
Click to expand...

We the people, in order to form a more perfect union........................
 
HendoRuaGOAT said:
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.
Click to expand...

you want to take money from people and give it to others who didn't earn it. Thats why your guy wont win.
 
JudoThrowFiasco said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
My impressions are that Cruz came off like a bit of a zealous lunatic, but at least I didn't hear him screaming about abolishing the IRS tonight (I missed the first 15 minutes so maybe he said it again). He's just so over the top with the rhetoric, give our ears a break man. Rubio is not secure enough, there's just no other way to say it. Too easily manipulated, too fake and rehearsed when he tries to talk tough. Trump got rattled a little but seemed to hold up fine. Kasich as always came off the calmest, but who cares.

I don't see this debate doing anything but solidifying what we've seen- that it's Trump pretty far in front. And I see him doing just fine in closed primaries, just as the polls suggest he will.
 
JudoThrowFiasco said:
you want to take money from people and give it to others who didn't earn it. Thats why your guy wont win.
Click to expand...
You mean how communist China has to lend money to Capitalist USA and make the citizens pay the interest?
It blows me away that people just can't understand that the uber rich have fleeced everyone by paying lobbyists and politicians to make policy for them for $$$ benefit, and they did it while making you think it was ok, in fact defending it.
 
JudoThrowFiasco said:
you want to take money from people and give it to others who didn't earn it. Thats why your guy wont win.
Click to expand...

You want to ignore the history of the robber barons, great depression, and labor movement, and that is why your nominee is Donald Trump.

Have opinions with the depth of a puddle, and get candidates that reflect that.
 
Lead Salad said:
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.
Click to expand...

i didnt mean to insinuate you are poor, sorry if thats how it came off. - i just used two hypothetical situations, but one citizen is not responsible for the economical well being of another, especially when they are already paying 1/5th (at the hypothetical rate of 20%) of their income and they are not using as much of the system.

Even if that person has extra / discretionary income 500000x more than they ever need, its still there money and the government is fleecing them by mandating a higher percentage to be implemented on to them

again, the rich are not responsible for the poor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,275,147
Messages
57,971,114
Members
175,885
Latest member
gono

Share this page

Back
Top