Nope...not on this forum for sure. So I'm going to join you.
You are the biggest cunt on this board. Cunt's are all you know. You should change your name to Cuntster.
You drive a cuntmobile, live in cuntmune, eat cuntstew with your significunt other. My..... so many cunts ...too little time.
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 1:21:50 PM UTC-6, Ragnar wrote:
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 1:21:50 PM UTC-6, Ragnar wrote:
"slapping me silly"....something preventing me from typing the word cunt whenever I choose?
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 1:45:17 PM UTC-5, Navybrat wrote:I love this new "let her say what ever...I'm gonna be stoic shit. LOL...Like that's gonna stop me from slapping you silly any chance I get....
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 12:41:51 PM UTC-6, Ragnar wrote:I didn't miss your point....if you are a proponent of flat tax (proved as highly regressive) ....you are an economic idiot
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 1:36:59 PM UTC-5, xtal97 wrote:Uh, you missed the point of my argument - I'm going to assume that it was an honest mistake and you weren't intending to mistranslate it into an easily destroyed strawman argument and give you the benefit of the doubt that it was an honest mistake.
Anyhoo, the point I was trying to make was that we should ALL be taxed - at least when it comes to an income tax - we should all be taxed the same percentage of our income across the board and get rid of all the loopholes, exemptions, deductions, credits, and other ways creative accountants can rig the system for their clients - in fact, doing so would pretty much get RID of the entire accounting field in one fell swoop. If you make $25,000/year and the tax rate is 10%, then you cut a check for $2,500 on April 15, send it registered mail to the IRS and have done with it. Likewise, if you make $25,000,000 then you cut a check for $2,500,000 to the IRS and, well, you'd probably want THAT one personally delivered or courier delivered but whatever, you get the point.
This is FAIR - by any definition of the word in the Oxford-English dictionary. Anybody claiming anything else is deluding themselves, or is buying the seductive siren song of bullshit spattered out to convince those in the lower tax brackets that by paying either nothing or very little - a few percent of their $25,000 - while forcing some other schlep to pay a much higher rate, ostensibly because they're in a higher income bracket and can therefore afford to do so, like 35-40%, is noble and just rather than what it REALLY is: stealing. It's legal theft to force one person to pay extra to cover the income taxes that people in lower brackets WOULD otherwise pay IF we ALL had to pay the same rate. Under the current "progressive" system, the guy who makes $10,000,000/year pays $3,500,000-4,000,000 to Uncle Sam - nevermind what he pays to the state/county/city he lives in OR his FICA withholdings (FICA, BTW, IS a de-facto FAIR income tax of 12% on ALL our incomes imposed on ALL of us since the days of the New Deal and FDR. You'll note that, unlike Justice's and Ragnar's morally superior proscriptions and condescending doom-mongering to the contrary, the sky HASN'T yet fallen as a result of THIS particular flat-tax, has it?). Anyway, under the current system, the guy making $10,000/year pays a whopping $0.00 to Uncle Sam. The latter guy making $10,000/year would be paying $1,000 to Uncle Sam while the former guy making $10,000,000/year would be paying $1,000,000 to Uncle Sam. THAT is FAIR! Under the current system, since there will ALWAYS be more people who's earnings are closer to the $10,000 side than the $10,000,000, those people colluded long ago to force - via laws passed by their elected representatives and signed by their elected President - the guy making the $10,000,000 to pay not JUST his $1,000,000 but ALSO another $2,000,000-$3,000,000 to cover the amount that 2-3,000 people making $10,000 per year would otherwise have to pay. This is WRONG. It's NOT fair. Nevermind the practical aspects and harm it does to the economy, it's flat out WRONG to have somebody else cover their tax bill for no other reason than if it were put to a vote, there'd be 2-3,000 people voting to keep the current system of legalized theft in place versus one guy voting to go with a truly fair system.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to abc_politics_forum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
No comments:
Post a Comment