King vs Burwell

» Site Navigation
Home Page The Villages Maps The Villages Activities The Villages Clubs The Villages Book Healthcare Rentals Real Estate Section Classified Section The Villages Directory Home Improvement Site Guidelines Advertising Info Register Now Video Tutorials Frequently Asked Questions
» Newsletter Signup
» Premium Tower
» Advertisements
» Trending News
» Tower Sponsors




















» Premium Sponsors
» Banner Sponsors
» Advertisements
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 03-09-2015, 09:44 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
The rich are in a better position to afford it.

I worked hard and achieved some modicum of success. I have never once in all my years of being taxed, felt that I was being punished.
"The rich are in a better position to afford it."

I'm sorry but that's absolutely classic liberal arrogance. First you label someone earning "x" amount as "rich" and then pass laws to confiscate his wealth all under the guise that he can "afford it"! Unsaid, of course, is that if the rich are "allowed" to keep their earnings, they'll hoard it or waste it. Liberals believe society will be better served by redistributing those earnings to make things "fair".

Concerning the quoted second point, I'm happy you've achieved "some modicum of success". As gently as possible, I suggest your success likely does NOT include paying the highest tax rate in the nation or being subjected to "special taxes" aimed at punishing "the rich" like the "Additional Medicare" (Obamacare) tax, does it? After one enjoys being singled out for multiple "soak the rich taxes" your tune of not being punished might change.

Here's a thought - REDUCE THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT! Less government = less burdensome taxes. See the problem is that the liberal masses vote in favor of heavy tax burdens because they know they will likely NEVER be subjected to them. It's easy to pass a tax on someone else knowing you'll never be subject to it. The "rich", like "big corporations", are demonized and become an easy target for confiscation by the masses who are simply looking for more goodies like "Obama-phones" (FREE cell phones to low-income citizens, and likely many illegal aliens too!)
  #32  
Old 03-09-2015, 10:51 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
"The rich are in a better position to afford it."

I'm sorry but that's absolutely classic liberal arrogance. First you label someone earning "x" amount as "rich" and then pass laws to confiscate his wealth all under the guise that he can "afford it"! Unsaid, of course, is that if the rich are "allowed" to keep their earnings, they'll hoard it or waste it. Liberals believe society will be better served by redistributing those earnings to make things "fair".

Concerning the quoted second point, I'm happy you've achieved "some modicum of success". As gently as possible, I suggest your success likely does NOT include paying the highest tax rate in the nation or being subjected to "special taxes" aimed at punishing "the rich" like the "Additional Medicare" (Obamacare) tax, does it? After one enjoys being singled out for multiple "soak the rich taxes" your tune of not being punished might change.

Here's a thought - REDUCE THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT! Less government = less burdensome taxes. See the problem is that the liberal masses vote in favor of heavy tax burdens because they know they will likely NEVER be subjected to them. It's easy to pass a tax on someone else knowing you'll never be subject to it. The "rich", like "big corporations", are demonized and become an easy target for confiscation by the masses who are simply looking for more goodies like "Obama-phones" (FREE cell phones to low-income citizens, and likely many illegal aliens too!)
Regardless of what you may think, I'm not liberal or arrogant. I simply understand that people who have more money are better able to pay higher taxes than those who make less money. Pretty simple stuff, really. I'm sorry but your position is absolutely classic conservative arrogance. First you label someone earning "x" amount as "lazy" and then pass laws to confiscate what little he has since he's not a "job creator"! Unsaid, of course, is that if the poor are "allowed" to keep their earnings, they'll spend them on cigarettes and booze.

Reducing the size of government, it is true, would probably reduce the tax burden. But that wasn't the point of the post I originally quoted. That post wanted to reallocate the "confiscation" from the "relatively wealthy" to the "relatively poor" through the use of regressive tax policies.

See the problem is that conservatives vote in favor of heavy tax burdens on the poor because they know they will likely NEVER be subjected to them. It's easy to pass a tax on someone else knowing you'll never be subject to it.

Your arguments make just as much sense against you as they did in support of you. (That's not the sign of a good argument)
  #33  
Old 03-09-2015, 12:41 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Regardless of what you may think, I'm not liberal or arrogant. I simply understand that people who have more money are better able to pay higher taxes than those who make less money. Pretty simple stuff, really. I'm sorry but your position is absolutely classic conservative arrogance. First you label someone earning "x" amount as "lazy" and then pass laws to confiscate what little he has since he's not a "job creator"! Unsaid, of course, is that if the poor are "allowed" to keep their earnings, they'll spend them on cigarettes and booze.

Reducing the size of government, it is true, would probably reduce the tax burden. But that wasn't the point of the post I originally quoted. That post wanted to reallocate the "confiscation" from the "relatively wealthy" to the "relatively poor" through the use of regressive tax policies.

See the problem is that conservatives vote in favor of heavy tax burdens on the poor because they know they will likely NEVER be subjected to them. It's easy to pass a tax on someone else knowing you'll never be subject to it.

Your arguments make just as much sense against you as they did in support of you. (That's not the sign of a good argument)


It's pretty easy to spot those paying little tax supporting the high taxes levied upon what they demonize as "the rich". It's classic class-warfare straight out of the liberal handbook.
  #34  
Old 03-09-2015, 04:42 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Please give me a specific example of when conservatives voted for a heavy tax burden on the poor.
  #35  
Old 03-10-2015, 07:26 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Please give me a specific example of when conservatives voted for a heavy tax burden on the poor.
Never said they voted on it. But conservatives continue to advocate for Flat/Fair/Sales taxes. One thing these all have in common is that they place a larger burden on those least able to afford it. Now if you believe that relatively poorer people should pay more in taxes, that's ok. But just come out and say, "I believe that poor people should spend less money on food, and more money on taxes."
  #36  
Old 03-10-2015, 07:37 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post


It's pretty easy to spot those paying little tax supporting the high taxes levied upon what they demonize as "the rich". It's classic class-warfare straight out of the liberal handbook.
Who is demonizing the rich? This is just your standard "straight out of the liberal handbook" nonsense. It's spouted so often on here as to become hackneyed and meaningless.
  #37  
Old 03-10-2015, 08:05 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Please give me a specific example of when conservatives voted for a heavy tax burden on the poor.
Conservatives continue to advocate for Flat/Fair/Sales taxes. One thing these all have in common is that they place a larger burden on those least able to afford it. Now if you believe that relatively poorer people should pay more in taxes, that's ok. But just come out and say, "I believe that poor people should spend less money on food, and more money on taxes."
  #38  
Old 03-10-2015, 09:34 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"See the problem is that conservatives vote in favor of heavy tax burdens on the poor."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Never said they voted on it.
  #39  
Old 03-10-2015, 10:04 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Conservatives continue to advocate for Flat/Fair/Sales taxes. One thing these all have in common is that they place a larger burden on those least able to afford it. Now if you believe that relatively poorer people should pay more in taxes, that's ok. But just come out and say, "I believe that poor people should spend less money on food, and more money on taxes."
i think everyone should have some skin in the game. its bs when half pay no tax and a quarter get a handout from the government for just filing a return. its called the earned income tax credit and its bs. how do you get something back when you didn't pay any in?

maybe the bottom half could forego a few smokes, booze, cadillacs, fancy clothes, jewelry, hawaiian vacations, or fishing boats? i don't know what they're spending their extra dough on and i don't care but it's a stupid argument to say its either food or pay your taxes. you ever driven in a poor neighborhood and seen all the stupid junk piled everywhere?
  #40  
Old 03-10-2015, 06:10 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Regardless of what you may think, I'm not liberal or arrogant.
You ARE definitely LIBERAL, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

And I do believe you're happy to vote in favor of tax increases, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T AFFECT YOU.

That's liberal thinking... pass the buck to the other guy.
  #41  
Old 03-10-2015, 10:29 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Who is demonizing the rich? This is just your standard "straight out of the liberal handbook" nonsense. It's spouted so often on here as to become hackneyed and meaningless.

I really would like to see citations from "the liberal handbook" including title, author, publisher, and pages.

The liberal handbook I know is The New Testament of The Holy Bible.
  #42  
Old 03-10-2015, 11:18 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
I really would like to see citations from "the liberal handbook" including title, author, publisher, and pages.

The liberal handbook I know is The New Testament of The Holy Bible.
Karl Marx
Philosopher
Karl Marx was a German philosopher, economist, sociologist, journalist, and revolutionary socialist.
Born: May 5, 1818, Trier, Germany
Died: March 14, 1883, London, United Kingdom
Spouse: Jenny von Westphalen (m. 18431881)
Education: University of Jena, University of Bonn, Humboldt University of Berlin
Children: Eleanor Marx, Laura Marx, Jenny Marx Longuet, Jenny Eveline Frances Marx, Henry Edward Guy Marx, Edgar Marx
Books
View 35+ more
Das Kapital (1867)
Das Kapital
1867
The Communist Manifesto (1848)
The Communist Manifesto
1848
A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859)
A Contribution to the Crit...
1859
Capital, Volume I (1867)
Capital, Volume I
1867
The German Ideology (1932)
The German Ideology
1932
  #43  
Old 03-11-2015, 08:03 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

ACA has cost my wife and I $3,000 more per year. Our healthcare used to be free, but we were told that because of the increases in costs due to Obamacare that we would now be required to pay $250 a month just to keep the same coverage.
  #44  
Old 03-11-2015, 08:45 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
ACA has cost my wife and I $3,000 more per year. Our healthcare used to be free, but we were told that because of the increases in costs due to Obamacare that we would now be required to pay $250 a month just to keep the same coverage.
...and we care because...?
  #45  
Old 03-11-2015, 08:58 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
...and we care because...?
WOW......how rude! The topic is about ACA and healthcare coverage. That comment was just rude and uncalled for since the poster was clearly not even off topic. Care to clarify your hidden agenda in that comment?
 

Thread Tools

You are viewing a new design of the TOTV site. Click here to revert to the old version.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:51 PM.