- Joined
- Nov 16, 2014
- Messages
- 6,639
- Reaction score
- 1,487
- Location
- Pennsylvania, USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Do you realize that when Reagan took office the GDP was 2.8 trillion dollars and using percentage ignores the base. When Reagan left office it was 5.6 trillion dollars or double. The higher the base the lower the percentage is going to be except with liberalism as there never is enough spending on the part of the Federal Govt.
Yeah, a liberal utopia, tripling the 10.6 trillion debt that Obama inherited vs. the 900 billion that Reagan inherited. You betcha, 1.7 trillion in debt in 8 years vs. 7.6 trillion in 6, obviously the 1.7 is much worse and created much more debt service than the 7.6 trillion, right?
Yes, I could live with taxes funding what they were supposed to fund thus a strong military, funding for the VA, funding for the agency to collect the federal tax dollars, Funding for a reduced role of Congress and that would take the budget down to about 1.2 trillion dollars.
So, you dont care to back your claim.
This is my lack of surprise
You apparently cannot figure out the obvious point
to claim the rich should pay more income taxes you have to establish they use more of the services paid for by their income tax share of 40% and the bottom 50% who pay less then 2% of the income tax use less than 2% of the services
You know damn well that the bottom 50% are consuming more than 2% of the services and further inquiry is not needed
And YOU KNOW DAMN WELL
1) income taxes are not the only thing that funds federal spending
2)- more importantly, I am not talking about blocs of people. YOU said YOU don't get what you pay for.
I asked for your estimate of the services you use and their $ value. WHY won't YOU answer?
And YOU KNOW DAMN WELL
1) income taxes are not the only thing that funds federal spending
2)- more importantly, I am not talking about blocs of people. YOU said YOU don't get what you pay for.
I asked for your estimate of the services you use and their $ value. WHY won't YOU answer?
so is it your learned opinion that the bottom 50% pay more than 50% of all the federal taxes that provide for federal services?
Uh I sure don't get 400K worth of federal service
Yea, but to guys like you, people like Jeb Bush are on the extreme left.:lamo
Says the Constitution, Read it
...
2)- more importantly, I am not talking about blocs of people. YOU said YOU don't get what you pay for.
I asked for your estimate of the services you use and their $ value. WHY won't YOU answer?
That's what I love about guys like you. You figure just sayin' stuff is all that's necessary to make it so.
easy to say. apparently difficult to prove
some things are so ludicrous that there is no need for further proof
there is no rational argument that the top 1% use more of the federal services than they pay for. Indeed, the top 1% pay many hundreds of dollars for what they get compared to the bottom 50% who generally are getting federal services for free
so when Pimps like Obama and his fluffers say that the rich don't pay their fair share-they are objectively lying
I accept your "point" as conceded.
Posting a white flag image would have been faster and more efficient use of your time though.
some things are so ludicrous that there is no need for further proof
there is no rational argument that the top 1% use more of the federal services than they pay for. Indeed, the top 1% pay many hundreds of dollars for what they get compared to the bottom 50% who generally are getting federal services for free
so when Pimps like Obama and his fluffers say that the rich don't pay their fair share-they are objectively lying
i accept that your argument is dishonest. YOu really haven't been around long enough to engage in such silliness.
so tell me, why should the group that pays 40% of the income tax pay even more?
I bet that top 1% benefit more tangibly from intellectual property protections than the bottom 99% and since they get that via the government, a 60% tax rate would still be 39% to their advantage.
Because it is both in the economic best interest of the nation at the moment, and because philosophically they have exponentially more "to lose".
you are just making stuff up and people already pay massive taxes on the income they derive from intellectual property.
no we don't and that is a BS argument. the poor are far less mobile than the rich. it doesn't cost the government any more to "protect" a rich estate vs a tenement.
What have I made up? DO you think a lot of welfare recipients hold patents and trademarks that keep other people from being able to sell crack or weed now do you?
Do you think welfare recipients are incapable of inventing something that would require a patent or trademark?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?