Insane Pedo Joe Biden says $400,000 per year income is NOT RICH

[Geeko Sportivo]

In other words you have nothing to refute the truth. Got it. You idiot.

 

[Nordberg]

The trope we often hear is the rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes. But if we want to go elitist why should someone who went to school and worked hard have to pay more to give it to someone who didn’t go to college? So why should those who did right be punished? (Unless your argument is we have to give it to the lower class trash to keep them from rioting and ruining our good life.)

You really do not see why we have a graduated income tax? If you tax a billionaire 50 percent, the poor punished guy will have to live on half a billion. That is not a punishment. The wealthy gobble up a lot more resources too. They have the power to not pay their share. And they fool people like you into thinking they are being abused.

 

[cawacko]

You really do not see why we have a graduated income tax? If you tax a billionaire 50 percent, the poor punished guy will have to live on half a billion. That is not a punishment. The wealthy gobble up a lot more resources too. They have the power to not pay their share. And they fool people like you into thinking they are being abused.

While this may not be your personal situation, your rhetoric is of a poor. There's a reason we encourage people to go to college so they don't end up poor whining about people who did go and are now economically successful.

Yes, we all understand a graduated income tax. The discussion was what amount qualifies one to be rich and therefore taxed at a higher rate.

 

[Nordberg]

"The U.S. has an extensive support system for the poor; the average poor family with children receives $65,200 in government benefits and resources each year." https://www.heritage.org/welfare/report/largest-welfare-increase-us-history-will-boost-government-support-76400-poor-family

See anything wrong here Geeko?

You believe that because it is what you want to believe. It is wrong. https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/countries/united-states/poverty-in-the-us/

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Shows how out of touch this proven child molester is. If he wants to raise taxes on only rich people, the line should be drawn at say $80,000

Cast Away Caste


Tax inheritances over $100,000 at 100% and no one will ever again have to pay income taxes or even corporate taxes.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I support soaking the super-rich since most of them are useless people. Entertainers, athletes, politicians, lawyers, bankers etc. Just hi-paid welfare trash with jobs of no social value.

Sperm Bingo


HeirHeads destroy society, so that's worse than not helping it.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

You really do not see why we have a graduated income tax? If you tax a billionaire 50 percent, the poor punished guy will have to live on half a billion. That is not a punishment. The wealthy gobble up a lot more resources too. They have the power to not pay their share. And they fool people like you into thinking they are being abused.

Two Wings of the Same Entitled Vulture. Carry On, Carrion.


Sam Walton's spawn inherited $250 billion and never earned a penny of it. Income may sometimes be excessive or dishonestly made, but at least the recipient had to work for it.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Cast Away Caste


Tax inheritances over $100,000 at 100% and no one will ever again have to pay income taxes or even corporate taxes.

Do that and any sane person will go to their grave worth less than $100,000...

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

You really do not see why we have a graduated income tax? If you tax a billionaire 50 percent, the poor punished guy will have to live on half a billion. That is not a punishment. The wealthy gobble up a lot more resources too. They have the power to not pay their share. And they fool people like you into thinking they are being abused.

The trouble with the super-rich is they are useless. They are lawyers, heirs, entertainers, politicians etc. A dumb jock negro like Lebron makes $100million a year. He should be taxed at 99%. OTOH, if you make a ton of money by being say an inventor, your tax rate should be low.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

Cast Away Caste


Tax inheritances over $100,000 at 100% and no one will ever again have to pay income taxes or even corporate taxes.

I dunno. It's important that people have an incentive get rich and pass on that wealth. I don't like 100%. 50 might be ok.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

Sam Walton's spawn inherited $250 billion and never earned a penny of it. Income may sometimes be excessive or dishonestly made, but at least the recipient had to work for it.

Walton did a great thing for america in founding walmart. Put his pic on the $20 bill.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

The trope we often hear is the rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes. But if we want to go elitist why should someone who went to school and worked hard have to pay more to give it to someone who didn’t go to college? So why should those who did right be punished? (Unless your argument is we have to give it to the lower class trash to keep them from rioting and ruining our good life.)

Humans are not lone hunters.
Genetically, we're social creatures who live in a social setting.

That being the case, we're not entitled to shirk social responsibility.
If we do, we're exhibiting anti-social [criminal] behavior, and need to be excised for the sake of the social community.

Libertarians openly advocate against this, and thus identify themselves as appropriate candidates for purging.
If you don't want to pay for the benefits of living in civilization when you're able to do so,
then civilization simply can't allow you to live.
You're too much of an unnecessary burden, and there are other innocents who actually need the help.

For the benefits they receive from society, the rich very clearly don't pay nearly enough taxes.
The issue here, however, is who qualifies as rich?
Withtoday's inflated money, many people miss badly on how much it takes to be rich.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Humans are not lone hunters.
Genetically, we're social creatures who live in a social setting.

That being the case, we're not entitled to shirk social responsibility.
If we do, we're exhibiting anti-social [criminal] behavior, and need to be excised for the sake of the social community.

This is true only to the extent that one has to behave properly in society. Think 10 Commandments stuff.

On the other hand, no one has to be and particularly should be forced to be altruistic towards others in society. That is people should have no legal obligation to support their neighbors financially if they don't want to. That should be everyone's choice.
But on the Left, it is held that society should take from the rich and give to the poor by force of government because that is somehow "just." It isn't.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

This is true only to the extent that one has to behave properly in society. Think 10 Commandments stuff.

On the other hand, no one has to be and particularly should be forced to be altruistic towards others in society. That is people should have no legal obligation to support their neighbors financially if they don't want to. That should be everyone's choice.
But on the Left, it is held that society should take from the rich and give to the poor by force of government because that is somehow "just." It isn't.

Enhancing the position of the collective society is not seen as an obligation by libertarians.
Sophisticated societies have rejected this concept.

As much as some of us would like to be free agents,
the intellectually superior,
on whom we must all depend for direction, lest we fuck up as badly as we routinely do here in populist America,
have determined that none of us have this option.

I agree. We can do what we want, but only after we've done what we must.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Enhancing the position of the collective society is not seen as an obligation by libertarians.
Sophisticated societies have rejected this concept.

As much as some of us would like to be free agents,
the intellectually superior,
on whom we must all depend for direction, lest we fuck up as badly as we routinely do here in populist America,
have determined that none of us have this option.

I agree. We can do what we want, but only after we've done what we must.

You are wrong. Only Leftist societies have adopted forced altruism in the form of Socialism. In most cases, particularly the most complete where heavy-handed Socialism becomes the norm, it was done at the end of a gun barrel.

Back in the 70's I remember watching a 60 Minutes episode where they interviewed a famous Swedish author about her taxes in Sweden. This was at the height of Swedish Socialism before they got rid of much of that system. She told the interviewer that the Swedish government was demanding 110% of her income for the year.

That is how Socialism rolls. Success is penalized, failure is rewarded all in the name of "fair and equal" claiming that altruism should be the way. That isn't "Intellectually superior." That is sophistry at its worst. Socialism requires the belief that you can change basic, innate human nature, and those that advocate for it are either oblivious fools or disingenuous liars because history has proven them wrong time after time.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

You are wrong. Only Leftist societies have adopted forced altruism in the form of Socialism. In most cases, particularly the most complete where heavy-handed Socialism becomes the norm, it was done at the end of a gun barrel.

Back in the 70's I remember watching a 60 Minutes episode where they interviewed a famous Swedish author about her taxes in Sweden. This was at the height of Swedish Socialism before they got rid of much of that system. She told the interviewer that the Swedish government was demanding 110% of her income for the year.

That is how Socialism rolls. Success is penalized, failure is rewarded all in the name of "fair and equal" claiming that altruism should be the way. That isn't "Intellectually superior." That is sophistry at its worst. Socialism requires the belief that you can change basic, innate human nature, and those that advocate for it are either oblivious fools or disingenuous liars because history has proven them wrong time after time.

Absurd. Politics have moved from right to left from the very beginnings of humanity.
Those who would impede this trend have ALWAYS been proven to be on the wrong side of history.
This is simply the reality of this world.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Absurd. Politics have moved from right to left from the very beginnings of humanity.
Those who would impede this trend have ALWAYS been proven to be on the wrong side of history.
This is simply the reality of this world.

Doesn't mean that's a good thing. In fact, it's provable that is a very bad thing.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Doesn't mean that's a good thing. In fact, it's provable that is a very bad thing.

You're of course allowed to feel that way,
but in the end,
I suspect that it will only add to your frustration.

I will admit to being frustrated myself,
but only due to the slow speed of the progression.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I support soaking the super-rich since most of them are useless people. Entertainers, athletes, politicians, lawyers, bankers etc. Just hi-paid welfare trash with jobs of no social value.

Why don't you vote Democrat?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You're of course allowed to feel that way,
but in the end,
I suspect that it will only add to your frustration.

I will admit to being frustrated myself,
but only due to the slow speed of the progression.

Then you must have little to lose in a socialist society where those that are successful and well off have everything to lose while those with little or nothing have everything to gain. A society that penalizes success and hard work while lifting up failure and sloth. That's what every socialist-style government, to whatever extent it is adopted, does.