• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fair Means Equal

making people dependent on government is not actually helping many of the less fortunate. It helps the people who control the handouts
defends his neo-fascist, Ayn Rand/Tommy Udo sociopathic arguments.... by repeating neo-fascist, Ayn Rand/Tommy Udo sociopathic rhetoric.
 
defends his neo-fascist, Ayn Rand/Tommy Udo sociopathic arguments.... by repeating neo-fascist, Ayn Rand/Tommy Udo sociopathic rhetoric.
your posts generally are bombastic bullshit. I doubt you have ever read Rand. and demanding others pay for your existence is sad
 
making people dependent on government is not actually helping many of the less fortunate. It helps the people who control the handouts

"You'd be better off without the social safety net" says the rich guy to a poor person.

You already betrayed your real motivation. You just hate having "your" money go to those people who you see as beneath you.
 
your posts generally are bombastic bullshit. I doubt you have ever read Rand. and demanding others pay for your existence is sad

Stop driving on my roads.
 
"You'd be better off without the social safety net" says the rich guy to a poor person.

You already betrayed your real motivation. You just hate having "your" money go to those people who you see as beneath you.
you're just lying about what I believe. What I hate is watching democrats keep people in squalor and poverty and continually having to vote for their pushers. If everyone was wealthy and didn't need government assistance-the Democrats would never win elections. so why would Democrats want to wean people off of welfare
 
you're just lying about what I believe. What I hate is watching democrats keep people in squalor and poverty and continually having to vote for their pushers. If everyone was wealthy and didn't need government assistance-the Democrats would never win elections. so why would Democrats want to wean people off of welfare

Once again showing your hate for the poor. What, you're some superior intellectual who votes based on the best candidate? Interests of the nation? But those filthy poors, they just vote for handouts! They're just lazy and stupid and unable to see the truth like a smart person like you, right?

Fun stance you have there. Swearing your guys would totally win in a fairy tale magic universe. Unfalsifiable claim, boring. Well Turtle, here in the real world things aren't actually cotton candy and unicorns and fairness, and there are people who work just as hard as you do but still need help and they don't appreciate how ready you are to hate them.

Democrats "keep people in squalor." Sure buddy. Sure.
 

Someone tell Biden, because he clearly doesnt know this. Ten times yesterday he said the word fair in his speech praising the tax increases they are ramming through.

Billionaries get richer - not FIAR
Big corps and wealthy have to pay their FAIR share - 7 times
Pandemic present us with an opportunity for working people (rich people dont work) to get a FAIR shot
bring FAIRNESS to the tax code



Thats pretty offensive. Lets use tragedy to soak the rich?

Meanwhile, Tax foundation lists all the new taxes and says they wont even pay for half of the new spending. Not to mention the 3 trillion in debt theyve already done this year. But its early. This is just a bill thats made it out of committee, and will probably be rubber stamped by the House. It may be slowed in the Senate or they may use reconciliation to rubber stamp it over there.

Lefties don't understand fair in the mature world; they are in a time warp in their preschool days.
 
Once again showing your hate for the poor. What, you're some superior intellectual who votes based on the best candidate? Interests of the nation? But those filthy poors, they just vote for handouts! They're just lazy and stupid and unable to see the truth like a smart person like you, right?

Fun stance you have there. Swearing your guys would totally win in a fairy tale magic universe. Unfalsifiable claim, boring. Well Turtle, here in the real world things aren't actually cotton candy and unicorns and fairness, and there are people who work just as hard as you do but still need help and they don't appreciate how ready you are to hate them.

Democrats "keep people in squalor." Sure buddy. Sure.
He doesn't work, but he does hate the poor with vigor.
 
Once again showing your hate for the poor. What, you're some superior intellectual who votes based on the best candidate? Interests of the nation? But those filthy poors, they just vote for handouts! They're just lazy and stupid and unable to see the truth like a smart person like you, right?

Fun stance you have there. Swearing your guys would totally win in a fairy tale magic universe. Unfalsifiable claim, boring. Well Turtle, here in the real world things aren't actually cotton candy and unicorns and fairness, and there are people who work just as hard as you do but still need help and they don't appreciate how ready you are to hate them.

Democrats "keep people in squalor." Sure buddy. Sure.
the real hate for the poor are the people who have a vested interest in them remaining poor. You democrats want a captive audience of dependents who have to vote for your masters or lose their welfare checks.
 
. You democrats want a captive audience of dependents who have to vote for your masters or lose their welfare checks.
Credible citation needed for this^ bullshit positive claim, or into the DP shredder of FAILURE it goes.. 🍿
 
I doubt you have ever read Rand. and demanding others pay for your existence is sad
Ayn accepted over $47K (in 2021 dollars) just from Social Security alone, not including Medicare payments, in 8 years.
 
Ayn accepted over $47K (in 2021 dollars) just from Social Security alone, not including Medicare payments, in 8 years.
I couldn't care less. I don't worship her
 
If they "want both" then to hell with them.
What? That's a strange take.

Pizza place: "We have enough pizza orders that we want two delivery drivers."
Spirit of The Millennium: "TO HELL WITH YOU!"
Pizza place: "Who the hell is this guy, anyway?"

"Government adjustment" means a payment. Of money. For being a parent, nothing more or less. You will notice that I reserve to government the right to "social engineer" and it's because I don't trust anyone BUT government to do it. Churches tried and quite widely failed (orphanages) so what kind of fool would trust someone whose primary concern is profit?
Not only do I not trust government to do it either, I don't think a person deserves a cash benefit from the government just because they squeezed a small person out their cooch.
 
Except rich people don't need the shoddy, overpriced "services" government provides.
Really? How much of Jeff Bezos's wealth do you think he would be able to keep if the government disappeared tomorrow? No more military, no more police, no more FDIC. Dollars? Just green paper. Stocks? Bonds? Burn them. The deed to the land? The title to your car? Worthless.

When he comes home to find a gang has taken over his mansion and still all his cars?

There's an old saying in the legal profession. Possession is 9/10ths of the law. Well if 90% of the law deals with possession then the people with the most possessions are the ones who would benefit the most from it.

Opportunity is never fair and can never be made fair. A good part of opportunity is just being in the right place at the right time. Even identical twins growing up the same household have unequal opportunity.
It can be made significantly fairer. Inability to achieve perfection is not an excuse to avoid getting closer.
Before Ronald Reagan, the middle class was much much better off than they were today.
Wrong. Fortunes are blown every day. You sound like someone who has never personally invested in anything.
Nonsense. We went through one of the worst economic crashes in 80 years just 15 years ago. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet didn't bat an eye.
With the exception of some actors or athletes who had no idea how to handle their money, there is virtually no way that someone who started out as a multi-millionaire and go flat broke aside from sheer stupidity.
Trump himself has filed for bankruptcy 7 times, and can still claim to be a Billionaire.
Wrong again. Millions and millions of immigrants came to American penniless, and in just two generations became middle class or better.
Two generations to get to the middle class is not something to brag about, and the fact that it CAN happen does not make it normal or common.

But that was when the progressive regulatory state was very small. Today the filthy regulatory state has its dirty fingers in everybody's pie, but it's a net benefit to giant corporations because it is much easier for them to comply with the regulatory burden.
No, that was before Reagan, Union busting, and a high school diploma became worthless. It was before excessive free trade shipped virtually every middle-class job overseas.
 
Uh, the context is a single dominate authority applying a burden (tax) on a populace......not.....an employer, one of millions, bargaining with a job seeker. The job seeker has choice, the tax payer does not.
I was trying to figure out how deep that loony idea went.

Regressive taxes are often flat in nature, meaning that the same rate of tax applies (generally) regardless of income. These taxes include most sales taxes, payroll taxes, excise taxes, and property taxes. Because the same rate of tax applies regardless of one's income, a lower-income individual may face a higher tax burden
There is no objective measure by which a flat tax inflicts a greater tax burden on people making less money. They pay the same rate as and less money than higher earners.
 
I was trying to figure out how deep that loony idea went.


There is no objective measure by which a flat tax inflicts a greater tax burden on people making less money. They pay the same rate as and less money than higher earners.
the left hates flat taxes because the government cannot pander nearly as much as they do with progressive taxes. The pandering works like this: a democrat tells the masses they will get more government services by making the "rich" pay "their fair share"-accomplished by raising the top rates. If the pimp in office had to say-well everyone's rate is going up 4%, the pandering would fail
 
There is no objective measure by which a flat tax inflicts a greater tax burden on people making less money.
Uh, it is called " ratio", or "division". You might have been sick that day.

Ask for help.
 
Uh, it is called " ratio", or "division". You might have been sick that day.

Ask for help.
other than "they can" why should the rich pay a higher rate than the poor?
 
Uh, it is called " ratio", or "division". You might have been sick that day.

Ask for help.
"Ask for help" says the guy who apparently can't figure out that a flat tax's "ratio" or "division" is the same no matter the income level and, therefore, neither regressive nor progressive.

Don't be too hard on him, though. He might have been sick that day.
 
other than "they can" why should the rich pay a higher rate than the poor?
You already answered that for yourself, you recognized their lack of propensity to spend. The accumulation/concentration of wealth impedes economic activity.

And before you try to argue "but investment...", capital investment/competition has declined as wealth concentration increased since 1980.
 
Back
Top Bottom