Real men don't give a sh!t what you think...

I lost points just for lowering myself to replying to you ladies.

If I'd known it would end like this, I'd have picked my own cotton.

Cheap a$$ Congress SCREWED us, they voted NO repatriation because it was...get this...TOO EXPENSIVE! What have those people cost us since? Untold $trillions.

We need a REAL solution to the "minority problem", not "equality", not diversity insanity. A REAL solution that doesn't drag everyone else down with them.

Did the girls laugh at you in the locker room when you put your training bra on? Do they still do that today? :clap2:

Wow, you really need to go back to Economics 101.
Any flat sales tax represents a higher percentage of income to those with less money, BUT ONLY IF THEY PURCHASE THE SAME AMOUNT OF GOODS AND SERVICES. They can't and they don't, it is simply a matter of lifestyle. Is your argument that "the poor" "deserve" the same lifestyle as "the rich"? If so, YOU ARE A SOCIALIST!!!. Do you subscribe to the theory that you can make the poor rich by making the rich poorer? That's a fallacy. Remember, "the rich" are rich for a reason---

They may have been born into money: In that case I agree with you, they don't "deserve" that any more than anyone "deserves" a government handout. Other than a few million that we would like to hand down to our kids, I wouldn't object to a heavy tax on anything over that. Better yet, I would like to see a mandatory contribution to legitimate charities.

They may have been "lucky". There are 2 types of luck. The first is the guy who left his garbage can lid at the curb, so flung it back to his house---hence inventing the Frisbee. Good for him. The second is the guy who buys a fistful of lottery tickets instead of milk for his baby. No sympathy there, I would make him give 80% of the winnings to a children's and orphan's fund.

But the overwhelming majority EARNED it, through hard work, reasonably frugal lifestyle, and wise savings and investments. They are the one's who "deserve" what they have, and the concept of taking it away to give it to a bunch of do-nothing couch sitters is ridiculous.

Your second post is economically idiotic. If a "greedy company" is paying lower wages than it's competitors, they will have no workers. If the general economy orchestrated by Obama supports low wages for medium income workers across the board, well, "elections have consequences". I also strongly object to the term "haughty/hatred", I have no problem helping the WORKING POOR, I have a problem supporting the LAZY POOR, THE CRIMINAL POOR, THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT POOR, and the MOTHER OF 8 CHILDREN BY 8 DIFFERENT FATHERS POOR. Choices should have consequences too. Unfortunately, it seems the concept of individual accountability is rapidly fading from the American scene

I have nothing more to add to this post except thank you for the informative, thought provoking post. It's posts like yours that gives me renewed hope that there IS intelligent conversation to be had out there besides the usual mudslinging with absolutely no substance to add to the conversation. Thanks for taking the time to post.

Most of what you said is correct except one item, FLAT TAX. I think you meant FAIR TAX. Flat tax is income tax that is the same percentage for everyone, whether you make one buck or a million. Fair tax is a sales tax.

To me, the fair tax is the most equal tax, as it all depends on consumption, not income. A senior that saves money or has non-liquid assets shouldn't have to pay tax on it until they spend it for products. A rich person spends tons of money and they would pay tons of taxes. What could be more fair than that?

No argument with that

You have quite an imagination. Although it is a bit creepy.

Actually, I've done pretty well for myself by ensuring that I DO understand economics.

That I also understand the excessive burden put on the working poor, simply makes me one of those 'trolls' that some of those on the right just love to bandy about. :D



Ummm, your attempt at diversion to a subject that isn't even being discussed (progressive vs. flat vs. fair tax) is simply a red herring.

My point that the poor already pay a higher % of their income to 'taxes' is not only true...but I even provided proof of it.

It's always easy to refute those who focus solely on 'personal income tax,' because they have it in their heads that it's the only tax that applies/matters.

It's not.

Local/state sales tax, taxes on fuel, SS/Medicare, ETC. are also paid by the working poor....reducing their actual income even further.

Are you aware that a family of 4 making around $50K in earned income (not investment income, which is treated much differently) after most deductions, actually pay little, if any...personal income tax?

Recognizing of course, they are also paying those 'other' taxes, albeit it is a much smaller % of their actual income.

Are those the 'sucking on the government teat' types you're referring to...and want to ensure they start paying 'their fair share?'

Or do you prefer to hang on to that stereotype of the welfare queen (typically a minority, with a large number of children) getting food stamps and other 'welfare' ....to fuel your prejudice?

Sure, those types do exist. But all too many focus solely on that small group to help stoke the flames of their outrage, anger and prejudice....when the actual facts are much different.


So, it sounds like you are all for 'Big Brother' and would like to dictate how others live?

I thought you righties were repulsed about that kind of thing?

Silly me, I guess that only applies to when it's you...not the OTHER person.

While I too believe it is sickening that someone would buy lottery tickets instead of food for their family, without absolute and total control of the populace...how else would it be stopped?

Who/what exactly, are going to be the person/entity that gets to make the decision on whether or not your lifestyle fits with what is proper?

Would you be OK if it were me making that determination? :1rotfl:


Once again, you're back to that stereotype that you're myopically focused on...to fuel your outrage.



Sorry Bubba, but it is YOU...who are obviously economically stupid.

Or didn't you understand what I said above?

Even someone making $15 an hour (almost twice the minimum wage), are still be eligible for public assistance.

And yet, you have also totally avoided my point about how 'multi-billion dollar a year in profit' companies have multitudes of employees who qualify for public assistance.

Apparently, you have no qualms of subsidizing these companies (who can certainly afford to raise their employees past the need of public assistance, paid for by yours and my taxes)...but would rather focus on just individuals?

The High Public Cost of Low Wages | Center for Labor Research and Education
What in your past has made you so bitter, angry and prejudiced against the working poor?



AHA!!

I guess I should have noticed this first, before I posted my comments above.

I obviously hit the nail on the head, when I guessed what was fueling your prejudice and hatred.

Thanks for making me look so prescient. :thumbup:


Just a thought, but might I be so presumptuous as to suggest you do a little more research before coming on here screaming about subjects that you have little knowledge?

Jes saying. :ho:




:wave:

CNM

I congratulate you on your left leaning incoherent rant. I wish you had even the slightest idea of what you are talking about, but like most "lefties", you are blinded by ideology and cannot deal with reality. I guess you think the CEO of IBM, responsible for tens of thousands of workers and billions of dollars should get the same pay as the guy who screws part A into slot B.? You glossed over my agreement with you about the WORKING poor. My point deals with the LAZY POOR, THE CRIMINAL POOR, THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT POOR, and the MOTHER OF 8 CHILDREN BY 8 DIFFERENT FATHERS POOR. I suppose you think it is "social justice" that millions of "Joe the Plumbers" work their butts off to just scrape by and yet have to support those losers?

BTW, the way you stop the beer, cigarettes and lottery tickets is by eliminating ALL CASH from the hands of public assistance recipients. No EBT cards. You go back to food stamps, except this time at 100% face value, and only good for the categories of food stamped on the coupon. You make it a class B felony to possess food stamps that you are not entitled to, so the resale market dries up. Yes, yes, the left thinks this was "demeaning" that people in the grocery line could see you were using food stamps. Well, too bad, skip the pity party. Those in line are paying for them anyway. What you, economically speaking don't realize, is that it is IMPERATIVE, repeat IMPERATIVE that those on public assistance occupy the very lowest rung of the economic ladder. Otherwise there is no incentive to work, get educated, or better yourself. Who would work if they could enjoy the same lifestyle for free? That's human nature. When FDR started "the dole" in the 30's, it was a SUBSISTANCE living----cold water flat, government surplus cheese and bread line. People would take any, repeat ANY job to get off "the dole". Now , with large screen TVs, computer systems with high speed internet, free cell phones, cars, and a magic EBT card that can even be used in casinos and strip clubs, there is little incentive to change.

Sorry to burst your ideological bubble, but the rest of us live in the real world. (That's planet Earth, in case you were confused)

:a040::boom::agree::agree:

Thanks for the bons mots,, Lee.z.a

GET OVER YOURSELF, A>S>S>H>O>L>E! It's done. Your type will soon be obsolete, thank goddess.

Typical Le.eza.

thank you. the first 10 posts have nothing of substance to offer a waste of space and people's time

Personal Best Regards:

L.e.ez, ae you serious? Trump sleeps with anything that breathes.
LOL!