The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

The more government grows, the more people who rely on government, the more Democratic voters there are. It's as simple as that. Since government has a tendency to grow (see the Ratchet Effect) it's only a matter of time until we have a one-party state.

Yeah, people "pay" taxes, but how much do they get back in benefits? And how many people only have a job because of government set-asides? Someone running on shutting down the post office, who I would wholeheartedly vote for, is never, ever going to win.

We definitely have a nation where one smaller group is paying for the other larger group. I have no idea how it could work any other way.
 
Well, I wouldn't say that a perpetual state of war that benefits the Lockheed Martins and KBRs of the world, or a vested interest in greater incarceration that benefits Corrections Corporation of America (and also KBR) creates more Democratic voters, however it certainly has increased the size of government and dependency on it to exist.

;)

I want evidence, not a thought exercise. Please and thank you.
 
[quote name='Spokker']The more government grows, the more people who rely on government, the more Democratic voters there are. It's as simple as that. Since government has a tendency to grow (see the Ratchet Effect) it's only a matter of time until we have a one-party state.

Yeah, people "pay" taxes, but how much do they get back in benefits? And how many people only have a job because of government set-asides? Someone running on shutting down the post office, who I would wholeheartedly vote for, is never, ever going to win.

We definitely have a nation where one smaller group is paying for the other larger group. I have no idea how it could work any other way.[/QUOTE]

Exactly where does the wealth of the smaller group come from? It comes from the work of the larger group. There is no way around that. If there was more income equality there would be less of a need to have government assistance. You can't take all the wealth and then be surprised about having to pay most of the bill.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']Exactly where does the wealth of the smaller group come from? It comes from the work of the larger group. There is no way around that. If there was more income equality there would be less of a need to have government assistance. You can't take all the wealth and then be surprised about having to pay most of the bill.[/QUOTE]
Now ask him why, especially as him being a "libertarian," does he hate the Constitution.:rofl:
 
[quote name='Spokker']Yeah, people "pay" taxes, but how much do they get back in benefits? And how many people only have a job because of government set-asides? Someone running on shutting down the post office, who I would wholeheartedly vote for, is never, ever going to win.[/QUOTE]

How much subsidy does the USPS receive?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, I wouldn't say that a perpetual state of war that benefits the Lockheed Martins and KBRs of the world, or a vested interest in greater incarceration that benefits Corrections Corporation of America (and also KBR) creates more Democratic voters, however it certainly has increased the size of government and dependency on it to exist.

;)

I want evidence, not a thought exercise. Please and thank you.[/QUOTE]
F-F-F-Facts! Jenkies, run Scooby!;)
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']You can't take all the wealth and then be surprised about having to pay most of the bill.[/QUOTE]

Yep. Much less of this would be needed if all of the corporate elite class re-invested even 10% of their huge incomes back into the company, raising wages, creating new jobs etc. rather than pocketing multi-million dollar salaries every year.

Similarly, we'd have lower debt and more social services possible if loopholes were closed and all forms of income were taxed as regular income.

But instead we have rampant income inequality, and when so much of the wealth is concentrated in the top few percentiles you're going to have a needy class at the bottom as there was nothing left for them.
 
This may be a stretch but bear with me. Anyone who has Amazon prime instant watch needs to go watch the first episode of A Bit of Fry and Laurie. It's an old British sketch show featuring Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie. The first sketch, of the first episode, it's so much like the interaction I imagine between a conservative republican and a well meaning school principal it's uncanny, and that episode is from 1989....

The bit about sexual reproduction...:rofl:
 
[quote name='Spokker']We definitely have a nation where one smaller group is paying for the other larger group. I have no idea how it could work any other way.[/QUOTE]

LMAO

Uh, the rich aren't paying jack shit. Look at the debt stupid. The debt.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Over the top spending (the debt stupid) =\= "the rich aren't paying jack shit".

All it shows is that our elected leaders have no concept of how to balance a budget.[/QUOTE]

No but we'll never balance the budget if the rich don't pay their fair share.

Never.
 
[quote name='camoor']No but we'll never balance the budget if the rich don't pay their fair share.

Never.[/QUOTE]

It seems to me that we won't balance the budget without raising revenue AND reducing expenditures.

BTW, what is a fair percentage for a 'rich' person to pay. Be sure to define rich.

I.E. A household making $500,000 per year should pay xx percent in taxes
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']It seems to me that we won't balance the budget without raising revenue AND reducing expenditures.

BTW, what is a fair percentage for a 'rich' person to pay. Be sure to define rich.

I.E. A household making $500,000 per year should pay xx percent in taxes[/QUOTE]
You first.:roll:
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']It seems to me that we won't balance the budget without raising revenue AND reducing expenditures.

BTW, what is a fair percentage for a 'rich' person to pay. Be sure to define rich.

I.E. A household making $500,000 per year should pay xx percent in taxes[/QUOTE]

With or without loopholes ;)
 
[quote name='yourlefthand'] Be sure to define rich.[/QUOTE]

Asking a question that can't be answered with concrete definitions isn't a good basis for discussion when it comes to real world ramifications.

But it is an excellent distraction tactic.
 
[quote name='Strell']Asking a question that can't be answered with concrete definitions isn't a good basis for discussion when it comes to real world ramifications.

But it is an excellent distraction tactic.[/QUOTE]

I gave an example of what I was looking for. People at x income level should pay y amount. As the discussion was referring to the rich paying their "fair share" I think it's important to define what rich is.

It's easy to say the rich should pay more. It's not easy to figure out WHO should pay more. I remember one day I was talking with some coworkers and one woman said wistfully that she thought it would be amazing to make at least $x per year once in her life. $x was $5k less than what I was making at the time. I'd have to look, but I'm pretty sure I did not have any federal tax liability that year due to a fairly low income and one child deduction.

It seems to me that a lot of people saying that the rich should pay more mean that 1) ONLY the rich should pay more, and 2) rich is defined as the income they wish they had.
 
[quote name='dohdough']You first.:roll:[/QUOTE]

[quote name='camoor']With or without loopholes ;)[/QUOTE]

I'm going to say camoor first, as s/he is making the claim that the rich aren't paying their fair share.
 
[quote name='camoor']With or without loopholes ;)[/QUOTE]

Lets go with effective tax rate. I think that a simplified tax system of lower rates with fewer deductions would be better for everyone in the long run.
 
Just cut military spending by 500 billion (putting us on par to spend the same as China does) and simplify the tax code to only include effective tax rates, and just kill all loopholes and deductions (it sounds simple but never will happen).
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']We wouldn't balance the budget if we taxed the rich at a 100% effective tax rate, every single year.[/QUOTE]
Nice strawman, dude. But if we took away all their capital and assets at the same time as taxing them 100%, I'm pretty sure we'd be more than covered for quite a while!:roll:

[quote name='yourlefthand']I gave an example of what I was looking for. People at x income level should pay y amount. As the discussion was referring to the rich paying their "fair share" I think it's important to define what rich is.

It's easy to say the rich should pay more. It's not easy to figure out WHO should pay more. I remember one day I was talking with some coworkers and one woman said wistfully that she thought it would be amazing to make at least $x per year once in her life. $x was $5k less than what I was making at the time. I'd have to look, but I'm pretty sure I did not have any federal tax liability that year due to a fairly low income and one child deduction.

It seems to me that a lot of people saying that the rich should pay more mean that 1) ONLY the rich should pay more, and 2) rich is defined as the income they wish they had.[/QUOTE]
"Class envy" is your argument? Get the fuck outta here!:rofl:

In a progressive tax system, it's obvious that those who make more will and should pay more as a percentage of income. This isn't rocket science and do you think your co-worker that's making 5k less than you should be subsidizing your child?

[quote name='yourlefthand']Lets go with effective tax rate. I think that a simplified tax system of lower rates with fewer deductions would be better for everyone in the long run.[/QUOTE]
Lemme guess...you're a flat taxer?
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']Lets go with effective tax rate. I think that a simplified tax system of lower rates with fewer deductions would be better for everyone in the long run.[/QUOTE]

Do you believe in a graduated rate? I do. On a steep curve.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
"Class envy" is your argument? Get the fuck outta here!:rofl:

In a progressive tax system, it's obvious that those who make more will and should pay more as a percentage of income. This isn't rocket science and do you think your co-worker that's making 5k less than you should be subsidizing your child?


Lemme guess...you're a flat taxer?[/QUOTE]

My argument is not class envy. I think that a graduated progressive tax is the most reasonable choice.

My point was just that 'rich' is a relative term. Compared to then, I have more money, but not to the point where I should be taxed at a super-high rate due to "tax the rich" populism.
 
Apparently whoever did this didn't get the memo that racism is TOTALLY over now (BTW what's a "Christiam"?): http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/24/obama-yard-sign-replaced-with-$$$$er-lover-and-obama-sucks-dick/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='yourlefthand']My argument is not class envy. I think that a graduated progressive tax is the most reasonable choice.

My point was just that 'rich' is a relative term. Compared to then, I have more money, but not to the point where I should be taxed at a super-high rate due to "tax the rich" populism.[/QUOTE]

Leftist populism? In this country? Yeah right, because "The Ed Show" gets all the big ratings and the liberal network "Air America" did so well.

Face facts, when it comes to populism, right-wing extremists like Palin pretty much have the game sewed up.

I think Lewis Black says it best:
"If a group of people - leaders - can convince a group of folk who barely have a pot to piss in that the rich shouldn't be taxed---- THAT is leadership!" - Lewis Black.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='camoor']Leftist populism? In this country? Yeah right, because "The Ed Show" gets all the big ratings and the liberal network "Air America" did so well.

Face facts, when it comes to populism, right-wing extremists like Palin pretty much have the game sewed up.

I think Lewis Black says it best:[/QUOTE]

But it is populist to say that the rich should pay more. Other than people who are deluded, everyone agrees. The issue is the definition of rich.
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']But it is populist to say that the rich should pay more. Other than people who are deluded, everyone agrees. The issue is the definition of rich.[/QUOTE]

No it's not. A progressive tax rate is just a policy.

Populism comes in when you say "look at those rich guys in their fancy mansions and limosines, they can pay more taxes" or the opposite "look at those welfare queens, they shouldn't be getting a free ride on my dime". It's more emotional, more anecdotal.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Nice strawman, dude. But if we took away all their capital and assets at the same time as taxing them 100%, I'm pretty sure we'd be more than covered for quite a while :roll[/QUOTE]

We still wouldn't be anywhere near it...
 
[quote name='camoor']No it's not. A progressive tax rate is just a policy.

Populism comes in when you say "look at those rich guys in their fancy mansions and limosines, they can pay more taxes" or the opposite "look at those welfare queens, they shouldn't be getting a free ride on my dime". It's more emotional, more anecdotal.[/QUOTE]

You don't think people are saying "look at those rich guys in their fancy mansions and limosines, they can pay more taxes"?

Really?

This week has been rough already. I misread what you posted.


I'm not arguing against a progressive system, I'm arguing against simplistic populist rationalizations for raising taxes on 'the rich'.

My point is that the definition of 'rich' is relative and rather subjective. I know a couple who are in the top 10 percent or so of incomes and they certainly don't seem rich to me. should they get charged significantly more taxes so they they can do less consuming? I've heard some of the same 'tax the rich' crowd observing that a big part of our problem is lack of demand - how is taking money away from the middle and upper-middle class going to stimulate demand?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Man I just had a depressing night. I was at my local Republican meeting and for the past couple days the candidates and grass root supporters have been depressed and complaiing about not enough support. So that was bad enough.

But it wasn't just that. I'd like to run for office as a member of the Republican ticket. I believe I could win an election. But I just don't see how I could win a primary. I'm in a room with 30 Grass Roots supporters, and I don't think i could get a single vote, because they're the hard core of the hard core. The whole, Obama's a socialist/communist crowd. This is the crowd that voted for Christine O'Donnell. And the thing is, they probably don't represent even a fraction of registered republicans. But they're the ones that show up and do all the work you need to win.

And they promote candidates that just can't win.

Like, the biggest problem for me is abortion. I'm pro-choice in a pro-life party. That's fine, I get that. I don't want to change the party platform. i have great respect for my friends who are pro-life. I understand that have a clear moral compulsion to oppose abortion. But I don't agree with it. I've wrestled long and hard about this, but I just believe that women have the right to an abortion at least in the first trimester if not slightly further along. I don't believe a fetus is sufficiently developed to be considered a human being after 4, or 6, or 12 weeks. I beleive that's a moral decision, one which the government has no right to force upon individuals.

But because of that alone, I could probably never win a primary.

But like, you got to really think about it. If you're truly pro-life, then that means no invitro-fertalization. No exceptions in the case of rape. No allowance of contraception. Or the day after pill. That personhood begins at conception. That stem cell research kills babies, etc. That's where these people are, and I believe they're wrong.

The irony to me is, I see the pro-life movement as a failure. I would probably reduce abortions in my state by half if I was elected as a representative. I would get funding to run ads so that teens knew they had other options than abortion. I would improve sex education. Increase access to health care and pre-natal care. In addition, I align with a lot of the parties policy positions. I don't believe that stem cell research should be paid for with federal dollars. I support the partial birth abortion ban.

We've had a number of pro-life candidates, and I promise you, they wouldn't do shit to reduce abortions in this state. No greater sex-ed because it's abstinence only. No greater health care because that's socialism. No social programs to encourage motherhood because that's wasteful spending. But they stand up there, say "Life" five times in sixty seconds, and they win a primary.

The grass roots supports people who are the hard core of the hard core. That are walking mini Limbaughs. But probably don't know the difference between public and private debt. Couldn't tell you what CBO stood for. Yet they win the primary and then get their ass handed to them in the election. Then they all whine about how it's the parties fault that they get no support.

I know I'm whining myself here, I just need to blow off steam. it's not their fault, they're just misinformed and it's my problem. If I was a candidate it's my responsibility to find a way to communicate to them and convince them to give me their vote. I want to serve my state but I just don't see a path for me winning a primary. It's depressing.
 
Just out of curiosity, why no federal spending on stem cell research? We spend plenty of cash already on other research, why not?
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']Man I just had a depressing night. I was at my local Republican meeting and for the past couple days the candidates and grass root supporters have been depressed and complaiing about not enough support. So that was bad enough.

But it wasn't just that. I'd like to run for office as a member of the Republican ticket. I believe I could win an election. But I just don't see how I could win a primary. I'm in a room with 30 Grass Roots supporters, and I don't think i could get a single vote, because they're the hard core of the hard core. The whole, Obama's a socialist/communist crowd. This is the crowd that voted for Christine O'Donnell. And the thing is, they probably don't represent even a fraction of registered republicans. But they're the ones that show up and do all the work you need to win.

And they promote candidates that just can't win.

Like, the biggest problem for me is abortion. I'm pro-choice in a pro-life party. That's fine, I get that. I don't want to change the party platform. i have great respect for my friends who are pro-life. I understand that have a clear moral compulsion to oppose abortion. But I don't agree with it. I've wrestled long and hard about this, but I just believe that women have the right to an abortion at least in the first trimester if not slightly further along. I don't believe a fetus is sufficiently developed to be considered a human being after 4, or 6, or 12 weeks. I beleive that's a moral decision, one which the government has no right to force upon individuals.

But because of that alone, I could probably never win a primary.

But like, you got to really think about it. If you're truly pro-life, then that means no invitro-fertalization. No exceptions in the case of rape. No allowance of contraception. Or the day after pill. That personhood begins at conception. That stem cell research kills babies, etc. That's where these people are, and I believe they're wrong.

The irony to me is, I see the pro-life movement as a failure. I would probably reduce abortions in my state by half if I was elected as a representative. I would get funding to run ads so that teens knew they had other options than abortion. I would improve sex education. Increase access to health care and pre-natal care. In addition, I align with a lot of the parties policy positions. I don't believe that stem cell research should be paid for with federal dollars. I support the partial birth abortion ban.

We've had a number of pro-life candidates, and I promise you, they wouldn't do shit to reduce abortions in this state. No greater sex-ed because it's abstinence only. No greater health care because that's socialism. No social programs to encourage motherhood because that's wasteful spending. But they stand up there, say "Life" five times in sixty seconds, and they win a primary.

The grass roots supports people who are the hard core of the hard core. That are walking mini Limbaughs. But probably don't know the difference between public and private debt. Couldn't tell you what CBO stood for. Yet they win the primary and then get their ass handed to them in the election. Then they all whine about how it's the parties fault that they get no support.

I know I'm whining myself here, I just need to blow off steam. it's not their fault, they're just misinformed and it's my problem. If I was a candidate it's my responsibility to find a way to communicate to them and convince them to give me their vote. I want to serve my state but I just don't see a path for me winning a primary. It's depressing.[/QUOTE]

Say you want to overturn Roe v. Wade and return abortion back to the state level. If you wanted to fill time and further shield yourself, talk about legislation you'd put forward to achieve those goals. Hell, you could even hit your opponents over the head with it, and claim they're supporting abortion by not taking any measure possible to stop it. Do the same thing with marriage if you have to. Best part is, you don't have to advocate actually banning abortion or gay marriage or anything else - just let the basers draw that conclusion on their own. Added with your stances against federal funding for stem cell research and abortion, you should be fine.
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']I know I'm whining myself here, I just need to blow off steam. it's not their fault, they're just misinformed and it's my problem. If I was a candidate it's my responsibility to find a way to communicate to them and convince them to give me their vote. I want to serve my state but I just don't see a path for me winning a primary. It's depressing.[/QUOTE]

I hear ya.

Focus on city-level stuff, then? Mayor, state rep, school board? Get established first as someone who is trustworthy and electable. There are plenty of elected positions that don't require primaries and have low voter interest. And others that don't pertain to matters of abortion, I'd say.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I think it was David Frum that said: I didn't abandon the Republican Party; they abandoned me.

Something to think about, man...[/QUOTE]
Frum is kind of an anomaly. The guy has plenty of things to place him firmly in republican territory, but then claims that he doesn't agree with much of their platform. It's almost like having your cake and eating it too.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I hear ya.

Focus on city-level stuff, then? Mayor, state rep, school board? Get established first as someone who is trustworthy and electable. There are plenty of elected positions that don't require primaries and have low voter interest. And others that don't pertain to matters of abortion, I'd say.[/QUOTE]

Vote Ackbar!

It's..

...

It's...not....

a trap....
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']You don't think people are saying "look at those rich guys in their fancy mansions and limosines, they can pay more taxes"?

Really?

This week has been rough already. I misread what you posted.


I'm not arguing against a progressive system, I'm arguing against simplistic populist rationalizations for raising taxes on 'the rich'.

My point is that the definition of 'rich' is relative and rather subjective. I know a couple who are in the top 10 percent or so of incomes and they certainly don't seem rich to me. should they get charged significantly more taxes so they they can do less consuming? I've heard some of the same 'tax the rich' crowd observing that a big part of our problem is lack of demand - how is taking money away from the middle and upper-middle class going to stimulate demand?[/QUOTE]

A couple who are in the top 10 percent of incomes are rich by definition.

Also who thinks the point of taxation is to stimulate demand? I never heard that one before.
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']Man I just had a depressing night. I was at my local Republican meeting and for the past couple days the candidates and grass root supporters have been depressed and complaiing about not enough support. So that was bad enough.

But it wasn't just that. I'd like to run for office as a member of the Republican ticket. I believe I could win an election. But I just don't see how I could win a primary. I'm in a room with 30 Grass Roots supporters, and I don't think i could get a single vote, because they're the hard core of the hard core. The whole, Obama's a socialist/communist crowd. This is the crowd that voted for Christine O'Donnell. And the thing is, they probably don't represent even a fraction of registered republicans. But they're the ones that show up and do all the work you need to win.

And they promote candidates that just can't win.

Like, the biggest problem for me is abortion. I'm pro-choice in a pro-life party. That's fine, I get that. I don't want to change the party platform. i have great respect for my friends who are pro-life. I understand that have a clear moral compulsion to oppose abortion. But I don't agree with it. I've wrestled long and hard about this, but I just believe that women have the right to an abortion at least in the first trimester if not slightly further along. I don't believe a fetus is sufficiently developed to be considered a human being after 4, or 6, or 12 weeks. I beleive that's a moral decision, one which the government has no right to force upon individuals.

But because of that alone, I could probably never win a primary.

But like, you got to really think about it. If you're truly pro-life, then that means no invitro-fertalization. No exceptions in the case of rape. No allowance of contraception. Or the day after pill. That personhood begins at conception. That stem cell research kills babies, etc. That's where these people are, and I believe they're wrong.

The irony to me is, I see the pro-life movement as a failure. I would probably reduce abortions in my state by half if I was elected as a representative. I would get funding to run ads so that teens knew they had other options than abortion. I would improve sex education. Increase access to health care and pre-natal care. In addition, I align with a lot of the parties policy positions. I don't believe that stem cell research should be paid for with federal dollars. I support the partial birth abortion ban.

We've had a number of pro-life candidates, and I promise you, they wouldn't do shit to reduce abortions in this state. No greater sex-ed because it's abstinence only. No greater health care because that's socialism. No social programs to encourage motherhood because that's wasteful spending. But they stand up there, say "Life" five times in sixty seconds, and they win a primary.

The grass roots supports people who are the hard core of the hard core. That are walking mini Limbaughs. But probably don't know the difference between public and private debt. Couldn't tell you what CBO stood for. Yet they win the primary and then get their ass handed to them in the election. Then they all whine about how it's the parties fault that they get no support.

I know I'm whining myself here, I just need to blow off steam. it's not their fault, they're just misinformed and it's my problem. If I was a candidate it's my responsibility to find a way to communicate to them and convince them to give me their vote. I want to serve my state but I just don't see a path for me winning a primary. It's depressing.[/QUOTE]

Your honestly is refreshing.

Dems may have some corrupt politicians but the modern Republican party is rotten to it's core. I will never vote R as long as I live.
 
[quote name='camoor']A couple who are in the top 10 percent of incomes are rich by definition.

Also who thinks the point of taxation is to stimulate demand? I never heard that one before.[/QUOTE]
Plus it assumes that the wealthy spend much anyway. Some of the wealthiest people I've ever met have also been the biggest cheapskates.
 
[quote name='Clak']Plus it assumes that the wealthy spend much anyway. Some of the wealthiest people I've ever met have also been the biggest cheapskates.[/QUOTE]

Yep. And even the big spenders aren't necessarily supporting small businesses etc. that really helps the economy anyway.

I mean all spending helps I suppose, but I can't imagine spending money on jewelery, Porshes, yachts, fine dining/personal chefs etc. does as much good for the financial solvency of the middle class as someone who's shopping and dining at standard local places.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']We still wouldn't be anywhere near it...[/QUOTE]
If that's what you think, I suggest you do some research on how much wealth the wealthiest 1% actually has as well as the wealth disparity in this country. Basing your argument of not paying down accumulative debt on 1 year of income is a stupid and unequal solution that's not even close to being equivalent.

Extend it to the next 9% and we'll be operating at current levels for years to come. If 70% of all wealth is held by the top 10% of the population, take a look at how much the US is worth and crunch some numbers.

edit: Either way, no one's seriously proposing 100% anyways and it's a distraction from the actual wealth disparity and the tax policies that perpetuate it, but if you're going to make some crazy assertion based on rhetorical tools, used it on people that are too dumb to figure out what you're doing. Trying it on me and a few others here is futile.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Clak']Plus it assumes that the wealthy spend much anyway. Some of the wealthiest people I've ever met have also been the biggest cheapskates.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. The wealthy aren't wealthy because they're spending all their money; they're wealthy because they're hoarding it.
 
[quote name='camoor']A couple who are in the top 10 percent of incomes are rich by definition.

Also who thinks the point of taxation is to stimulate demand? I never heard that one before.[/QUOTE]

a family income of $142,300 or more in 2010 would have put you in the top 10 percent of income
Click to expand...
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...ting-less-after-recession-and-should-pay-more

So if $140k is rich, what is the lower cutoff?



The point of taxation isn't to stimulate demand. Many of our economic problems come from lack of demand. If you tax people more heavily, they have less to spend...
 
[quote name='Clak']Plus it assumes that the wealthy spend much anyway. Some of the wealthiest people I've ever met have also been the biggest cheapskates.[/QUOTE]

We aren't talking about taxing the wealthy though, just taxing the rich.

Are you advocating for a confiscatory property tax?>
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']We aren't talking about taxing the wealthy though, just taxing the rich.

Are you advocating for a confiscatory property tax?>[/QUOTE]
....you're a strange little person.
 
[quote name='Clak']....you're a strange little person.[/QUOTE]

I'm beginning to think the same thing. A weird fascination with what denotes rich and now talk of a "confiscatory property tax".

If folks want to talk policy that's fine but this guy seems more preoccupied with painting the rich as victims of society-at-large. Either he's an impressionable kid who just read Atlas Shrugged for the first time or he's just bizarre.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top