SCOTUS

[sturg33]

But you're confusing stealing with spending.

OK lets say you're in a condo association with 40 other condo owners. THey vote to spend 25K to rebuild your roof of the condo as it's leaking or any number of other issues. 39 people vote for it you don't. Do you think that you should have the right to not pay for the part of it because you think it's unnecessary? Part of being in this country is that we spend money on things we don't agree with. And we voice our opinions when we don't agree with them until we stop spending that money. Or enough people voice their opinion in support until we do spend that money.

As far as future generations go. You're right they need to be accounted for. But we live in a world where the Senate votes on if Climate Change was caused by man and say it isn't (or can't be proved or whatever **** that was) you think the ****ers that work in Washington care about anyone's future but their own? If you care about the future generations tell them to get bent and cut down on emissions cause debt won't matter whne we're at war for water all the damned time.

I'm not confusing anything. In order to spend, you have to collect. The government collects by taking my money. That is money that I have worked for, earned, and own. Do you agree that is money that I own? If so, how do we also agree that the government has a right to it?

Your condo example is nothing like taxation. But in your example, I'd imagine this hypothetical owner would have had to signed an agreement that he would be subject to votes like that. And, even still, I could pretty easily move if I was unhappy. And before you say "you can move out of the US," you know it's nothing like the same thing, and is not easy

That is not our system. we also don't base things on popular vote. I never got to vote on Obamacare, did you? My representative did not vote for it. In fact, not a single republican in the entire house voted for it, which is basically unprecedented. Well less than half the country supported it. And yet, here we are, with the law. Why? Because a liberal President really wanted it to happen. He strong armed a majority congress into signing it without reading the bill. And my insurance rates have gone. Ho hum

When I say, in order to do what Bernie wants to do, he's going to have to steal from a lot of Americans to do so. You know why, because he's going to have to raise taxes on everyone. That means everyone will have less under Bernie than they do now. And if he decides not to raise taxes on everything, then that means he's stealing from future generations.

Either way you slice it, it's theft. It's just "legal"

 

[The Tariff King]

Sturg hates taxes. We know this. There really isn't any reason to argue with him about it. He'd be against a 20% tax rate, a 10% tax rate, and a 5% tax rate. He also believes a progressive income tax is unconstitutional so you guys aren't going to get anywhere debating with him. Any form of an income tax is stealing in his view.

Sturg also is a strong believer in states rights. The same people (not saying sturg directly) that argued civil rights in the 50's and 60's was a states' issue, same with slavery.

 

[sturg33]

Sturg hates taxes. We know this. There really isn't any reason to argue with him about it. He'd be against a 20% tax rate, a 10% tax rate, and a 5% tax rate. He also believes a progressive income tax is unconstitutional so you guys aren't going to get anywhere debating with him. Any form of an income tax is stealing in his view.

Sturg also is a strong believer in states rights. The same people (not saying sturg directly) that argued civil rights in the 50's and 60's was a states' issue, same with slavery.

I do hate taxes, because they are unnecessary if we ran a responsible government. i'm sorry I'd like for you to have more of what you earned.

progressive income taxes are discrimination... you can argue that it's the right thing to do, but it's simply discrimination.

 

[zitothebrave]

I'm not confusing anything. In order to spend, you have to collect. The government collects by taking my money. That is money that I have worked for, earned, and own. Do you agree that is money that I own? If so, how do we also agree that the government has a right to it?

Your condo example is nothing like taxation. But in your example, I'd imagine this hypothetical owner would have had to signed an agreement that he would be subject to votes like that. And, even still, I could pretty easily move if I was unhappy. And before you say "you can move out of the US," you know it's nothing like the same thing, and is not easy

That is not our system. we also don't base things on popular vote. I never got to vote on Obamacare, did you? My representative did not vote for it. In fact, not a single republican in the entire house voted for it, which is basically unprecedented. Well less than half the country opposed it. And yet, here we are, with the law. Why? Because a liberal President really wanted it to happen. He strong armed a majority congress into signing it without reading the bill. And my insurance rates have gone. Ho hum

When I say, in order to do what Bernie wants to do, he's going to have to steal from a lot of Americans to do so. You know why, because he's going to have to raise taxes on everyone. That means everyone will have less under Bernie than they do now. And if he decides not to raise taxes on everything, then that means he's stealing from future generations.

Either way you slice it, it's theft. It's just "legal"

It's not theft. I don't know how I cannot get this over to you. Your argument is pedantic at best and moronic at worst. I hope you're not being a moron because I know you're not one in reality.

I don't know what to say, this argument is stupid as hell though.

 

[zitothebrave]

I do hate taxes, because they are unnecessary if we ran a responsible government. i'm sorry I'd like for you to have more of what you earned.

progressive income taxes are discrimination... you can argue that it's the right thing to do, but it's simply discrimination.

 

[sturg33]

It's not theft. I don't know how I cannot get this over to you. Your argument is pedantic at best and moronic at worst. I hope you're not being a moron because I know you're not one in reality.

I don't know what to say, this argument is stupid as hell though.

saying it's not by insulting me is a tired routine.

Do I own the money I earn, or not?

 

[The Tariff King]

Either way you slice it, it's theft. It's just "legal"

Thank you for clarifying this.

How is it when you go on these financial rants, that you always fail to mention that the market always seemingly adjusts to whatever the median income is?

So it wouldn't matter if you were taxed at 30% or 20%, the market for everything adjusts to make it feasible for you to afford. You contend that raising the minimum wage only raises prices to keep in proportion to the wage hikes, but have you ever realized that if you just lowered taxes, that the market would raise prices to adjust for the spending power of the populace that increases the demand?

 

[sturg33]

Again, saying it's not by insulting isn't an argument. In what world is progressive income taxes not discriminating?

Group A gets taxed at one level based on specific characteristics

Group B gets taxed a different level based on specific characteristics

Group C gets taxed at a different level based on specific characteristics

yet everyone gets the same benefits.

What's the definition of discrimination?

the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people

 

[sturg33]

Thank you for clarifying this.

How is it when you go on these financial rants, that you always fail to mention that the market always seemingly adjusts to whatever the median income is?

So it wouldn't matter if you were taxed at 30% or 20%, the market for everything adjusts to make it feasible for you to afford. You contend that raising the minimum wage only raises prices to keep in proportion to the wage hikes, but have you ever realized that if you just lowered taxes, that the market would raise prices to adjust for the spending power of the populace that increases the demand?

Maybe that would happen. Maybe it would go the opposite way because now responsible individuals are deciding how to spend the money rather than a bloated, fat, inefficient government doing so. Have you seen what our army spends on naval screws?

I'd make the argument that most of us can spend money more efficiently and more beneficial to us than our federal government can

 

[The Tariff King]

saying it's not by insulting me is a tired routine.

Do I own the money I earn, or not?

It depends on how you look at it. Because the value of your money fluctuates depending on the market. What you receive after taxes may be worth more in 4 months than it is today depending on the markets. So instead of looking at is as a zero sum, look at it as how what you're taking in after taxes looks with purchase power.

Raising taxes on the 1% a bit doesn't effect their status or life or their spending power. Taxing them a little more isn't going to put them on par with any of us on this forum financially. So you have to ask, does taxing them a little extra take away their pursuit of happiness and freedom to buy whatever they can and more than the general public?

The bottomline is, once you make it to the top, you have to be damn Antoine Walker careless with your money to get back to the bottom.

I absolutely wouldn't mind taxing the 1% extra if it meant investing in the future of this country with infrastructure, public transportation, or just closing the gap on the deficit.

 

[The Tariff King]

Maybe that would happen. Maybe it would go the opposite way because now responsible individuals are deciding how to spend the money rather than a bloated, fat, inefficient government doing so. Have you seen what our army spends on naval screws?

I'd make the argument that most of us can spend money more efficiently and more beneficial to us than our federal government can

I don't think you're going to get an argument from me by how much the government wastes on defense spending. I think even if your average redneck Trump supporter actually saw how much we pay for a toothbrush in the hospital, or a naval screw, they would be outraged and want to cut defense.

The problem is you have most of the Republican Party's electorate assuming cutting waste on defense = cutting benefits and pay of troops. Any hint of cutting defense spending automatically fires the sirens of "Obama doesn't care about the troops". When really it's the wasteful spending of like the 200 million gas station we built in Afghanistan.

 

[sturg33]

It depends on how you look at it. Because the value of your money fluctuates depending on the market. What you receive after taxes may be worth more in 4 months than it is today depending on the markets. So instead of looking at is as a zero sum, look at it as how what you're taking in after taxes looks with purchase power.

Raising taxes on the 1% a bit doesn't effect their status or life or their spending power. Taxing them a little more isn't going to put them on par with any of us on this forum financially. So you have to ask, does taxing them a little extra take away their pursuit of happiness and freedom to buy whatever they can and more than the general public?

The bottomline is, once you make it to the top, you have to be damn Antoine Walker careless with your money to get back to the bottom.

I absolutely wouldn't mind taxing the 1% extra if it meant investing in the future of this country with infrastructure, public transportation, or just closing the gap on the deficit.

That's fine that you feel that way, and it may even be the right thing to do for society (I don't believe it is). But can't you see the selfishness of saying "I wouldn't mind taxing the 1% extra..."

Who are you to say that that person doesn't deserve their money at the same rate you or I do? Just because they've made more? Does that give us the a right to take from people who have more than us?

 

[sturg33]

I can at least appreciate you Sav for participating in actual dialogue rather than hurling insults

 

[The Tariff King]

That's fine that you feel that way, and it may even be the right thing to do for society (I don't believe it is). But can't you see the selfishness of saying "I wouldn't mind taxing the 1% extra..."

Who are you to say that that person doesn't deserve their money at the same rate you or I do? Just because they've made more? Does that give us the a right to take from people who have more than us?

I'm not saying I'm anybody in that position to do so. But I'm convinced that taxes when done right can be beneficial for society and improve society faster than the free market. And taxing someone like Buffet a little extra isn't going to stop the way he spends his money or make him hold back on a purchase. But taking away some of the tax burden from the middle class and giving it to the rich only gives hte rich more income to compensate, as the middle class has more purchasing power which usually goes back to the 1% anyways. The free market absolutely has it's place, but with things like the federal highway system, the internet, and stuff there have been a lot of beneficial things from taxpayer money.

The issue is crony capitalism manifesting itself and taking hold of all of both parties' agendas.

But again, is there anything unconstitutional about crony capitalism? Crony capitalism, like you said about taxes, is just "legal".

Any lobbyist can payoff a member of Congress for a vote, to my knowledge there's nothing illegal about it unless you decide that it goes against "faithfully protecting" their oath to the American people.

 

[The Tariff King]

Although recently I think Congress passed or was about to pass the stocks act where Congressmen were voting on things that would benefit their stocks (e.g. Congressmen who had investments in defense companies and knew Congress would give them money and also sat in the committee meetings).

 

[sturg33]

I'm not saying I'm anybody in that position to do so. But I'm convinced that taxes when done right can be beneficial for society and improve society faster than the free market. And taxing someone like Buffet a little extra isn't going to stop the way he spends his money or make him hold back on a purchase. But taking away some of the tax burden from the middle class and giving it to the rich only gives hte rich more income to compensate, as the middle class has more purchasing power which usually goes back to the 1% anyways. The free market absolutely has it's place, but with things like the federal highway system, the internet, and stuff there have been a lot of beneficial things from taxpayer money.

The issue is crony capitalism manifesting itself and taking hold of all of both parties' agendas.

But again, is there anything unconstitutional about crony capitalism? Crony capitalism, like you said about taxes, is just "legal".

Any lobbyist can payoff a member of Congress for a vote, to my knowledge there's nothing illegal about it unless you decide that it goes against "faithfully protecting" their oath to the American people.

And taxing someone like Buffet a little extra isn't going to stop the way he spends his money or make him hold back on a purchase.

But it does... I read Buffet's annual letter and watched his interview this morning and he said specifically that low interest rates (artificially low, by the way) cause him to make major business purchases that he otherwise wouldn't have. It's the same principle.

Crony capitalism is truly awful. How do I get rid of it? Reduce the amount of federal power so that it's less corruptible, and don't bail out businesses when they fail. Stop giving corporate welfare. And elect honest people who uphold their sworn oath to the constitution

 

[sturg33]

Although recently I think Congress passed or was about to pass the stocks act where Congressmen were voting on things that would benefit their stocks (e.g. Congressmen who had investments in defense companies and knew Congress would give them money and also sat in the committee meetings).

Unless something changed recently, Congress is exempt from insider trading laws. It's a complete joke. There's a reason the majority of them leave the house as multi-millionaires

 

[The Tariff King]

But it does... I read Buffet's annual letter and watched his interview this morning and he said specifically that low interest rates (artificially low, by the way) cause him to make major business purchases that he otherwise wouldn't have. It's the same principle.

Crony capitalism is truly awful. How do I get rid of it? Reduce the amount of federal power so that it's less corruptible, and don't bail out businesses when they fail. Stop giving corporate welfare. And elect honest people who uphold their sworn oath to the constitution

Buff also said the economy is also much better than the doom and gloom, unless I misread it.

Easy solution, vote for me in 16 years if we still have a country.

Mayor in 11 years, Governor in 14, POTUS in 16.

I will force a ChopCountry Subscription to every citizen.

(Note, I am also very serious about running for public office)

 

[Oklahomahawk]

Unless something changed recently, Congress is exempt from insider trading laws. It's a complete joke. There's a reason the majority of them leave the house as multi-millionaires

That's also my understanding. The same thing that would land each/all of us in jail they can do on national TV and get away with.

 

[The Tariff King]

That's also my understanding. The same thing that would land each/all of us in jail they can do on national TV and get away with.

I remember Steve Kroft's report on 60 Minutes about it, which included the top dogs in Pelosi and Boehner.

I thought that public pressure forced them to do something about it, but it must have died down around the time the government shutdown happened.