It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump's A No Good Commie

page: 9
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2020 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Raising taxes on the silly, ridiculously, wealthy instead of reducing them?


Punishing people who succeed is communism, America could thrive on a 12.5% flat tax, commies want 90%




posted on Aug, 3 2020 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Democrats think the best and only way is to tax everybody until there's nothing left for anybody else 🤣


This is literally false. You're fake news.



posted on Aug, 3 2020 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Problems of scale have nothing to do with individual rights. I understand what you are saying. But cash is not a ratio based measurement. Its an absolute value. This is proven through the mathematics of economics. Values must have offsetting entries...you can't fluff it out with a ratio based approach. The calculations won't foot.

So if i lose 10mil, i lose 10mil. It has an absolute value. And while the ratio of wealth may not make my plight sympathetic, the reality is the claim is no less. Its absolute value is still relevant, despite personal perception of impact. Until you can make a way to write the laws around feelings and perceptions instead of absolute truth, your argument only applies in the realm of public opinion, not legal fact.



posted on Aug, 3 2020 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: circuitsports

Because 12% of minimum wage is crippling to the worker.

America could survive on no income tax, but instead of forcing the businesses and wealthy to fund our nation through taxes on only commerce, they decided to have us all put skin in the game by stealing the efforts of our labor.



posted on Aug, 3 2020 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Xcalibur254

What he says is true. It doesn't indicate a desire to redistribute wealth.



So him signing off billions to the 1% in bailouts isn't redistributing wealth? Be honest, he wants to redistribute wealth, just upwards not downwards.



posted on Aug, 3 2020 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: circuitsports

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Raising taxes on the silly, ridiculously, wealthy instead of reducing them?


Punishing people who succeed is communism, America could thrive on a 12.5% flat tax, commies want 90%


Nobody wants 90% but good job exaggerating so no one will take you seriously.

Personally income tax in Russia is 13%. You wish we had that.



posted on Aug, 3 2020 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: FishBait

That isnt what the term is applied to. While you are not wrong in spirit...youre trying to redefine a term with an accepted meaning.



posted on Aug, 3 2020 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: FishBait

I pay about 18%.

The thing is, i shouldnt need to pay. The structures that allow me to work are a benefit baked in to civilization. To tax income is to essentially tax living. No one should pay taxes to exist in a world we all were given to live on.

Tax should be on transactions. Commerce. It should those who actually benefit from civilization that pay for it. Most of us just try to survive. Since living a feral life is largely illegal, we have no choice but to work.



posted on Aug, 3 2020 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: FishBait

I pay about 18%.

The thing is, i shouldnt need to pay. The structures that allow me to work are a benefit baked in to civilization. To tax income is to essentially tax living. No one should pay taxes to exist in a world we all were given to live on.

Tax should be on transactions. Commerce. It should those who actually benefit from civilization that pay for it. Most of us just try to survive. Since living a feral life is largely illegal, we have no choice but to work.


So you don't use roads then? Or the police?



posted on Aug, 3 2020 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: FishBait

I pay about 18%.

The thing is, i shouldnt need to pay. The structures that allow me to work are a benefit baked in to civilization. To tax income is to essentially tax living. No one should pay taxes to exist in a world we all were given to live on.

Tax should be on transactions. Commerce. It should those who actually benefit from civilization that pay for it. Most of us just try to survive. Since living a feral life is largely illegal, we have no choice but to work.


I don't disagree with that. But are you saying the new definition of commies is people who want 90% tax? I'm not sure what "redefine term" thing was all about.



posted on Aug, 3 2020 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: fencesitter85

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: FishBait

I pay about 18%.

The thing is, i shouldnt need to pay. The structures that allow me to work are a benefit baked in to civilization. To tax income is to essentially tax living. No one should pay taxes to exist in a world we all were given to live on.

Tax should be on transactions. Commerce. It should those who actually benefit from civilization that pay for it. Most of us just try to survive. Since living a feral life is largely illegal, we have no choice but to work.


So you don't use roads then? Or the police?


We could still have those things if we weren't funneling billions to the rich and over spending on the military (and police for that matter). There is a cheaper way to do things that requires less tax but we have to get over the current insane way we live first.



posted on Aug, 3 2020 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85

Roads are not paid through income tax. Police arent either.



posted on Aug, 3 2020 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: FishBait

Wealth redistribution is a term commonly agreed to mean taking from the wealthy to give to poor. Not the other way around. Thats the "redefined" term i referenced.



posted on Aug, 3 2020 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Roads not.

Police (and other services) are generally funded though state and local income taxes. Which have nothing to do with Trump.
edit on 8/3/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2020 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: FishBait

Wealth redistribution is a term commonly agreed to mean taking from the wealthy to give to poor. Not the other way around. Thats the "redefined" term i referenced.


Ahhh, needless to say I was being snarky in its use lol.



posted on Aug, 3 2020 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: circuitsports

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Raising taxes on the silly, ridiculously, wealthy instead of reducing them?


Punishing people who succeed is communism, America could thrive on a 12.5% flat tax, commies want 90%


Wow now Trump wants the gov to get a cut of the Tik Tok sale because the American people have made the app popular. I'm sure he'll be giving us our cut of that. Extortion and Communism in one deal. What a president.



posted on Aug, 3 2020 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Myth No. 2: The government raided the trust fund
Some people believe the Social Security system wouldn’t be facing insolvency today if the government kept their gosh-darned theivin’ hands out of it.

Here’s the truth: There has never been any change in the way Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government.

The Social Security trust fund has never been “put into the general fund of the government.” It is a separate account, and always has been.

We can find the origins of this myth in the change that happened back in 1969. At that time, the government began listing the trust fund’s transactions in a single budget along with all the other functions of the federal government.

The transactions were shown alongside other functions, but the trust fund remained a separate account. In 1990, the government began listing the activities of the trust fund separately.

None of these movements had anything to do with the actual operations of the trust fund; it was purely a change of accounting practices.

The government did not raid Social Security’s trust fund. But you might still believe the myth that it did if you don’t understand where the money went — because it is true that the system faces insolvency today.

Why isn’t there a trust fund sitting around with trillions of dollars from all the money we working taxpayers put into the system? Because the Treasury uses those dollars.

Before you say, “aha! This proves the point; the government did steal the money!” …not so fast. The government always uses incoming revenue to meet its current obligations before it borrows money. This includes funds coming in and earmarked for the Social Security trust fund.

For every dollar that comes in from Social Security taxes, a special-issue Treasury bond takes its place. These bonds earn interest — which is a good thing.

In fact, since these bonds were first introduced to the trust fund, they generated $1.9 trillion in interest. For reference, the total trust fund balance is only $2.9 trillion.

Had all those dollars been left in cash, the trust fund would be worth about two-thirds less and would have run dry much earlier than currently projected.

The bottom line is that there’s no difference between the way the federal government runs the trust fund and the way your bank handles your cash accounts.

When your paycheck is deposited, that bank uses that money and makes an accounting entry. When you need your money, the bank pulls it from the institution’s account and notes a debit to your account. But no one gets hooked on conspiracy theories about banks misusing funds.

No one should get too worked up about the federal government using a nearly identical process, either.



posted on Aug, 4 2020 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

It means he's going to strip the media barons of their billions and break up the monopoly they have on social media and internet search engines. Bankrupt the bastards and free up the internet from their tyranny.



posted on Aug, 4 2020 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dutchowl
a reply to: Xcalibur254

It means he's going to strip the media barons of their billions and break up the monopoly they have on social media and internet search engines. Bankrupt the bastards and free up the internet from their tyranny.


Yea, that's why his admin killed net neutrality because he's working so hard to protect us. Yawn. They are handing the internet over to corporations so they can control and profit. Just like everything else.

I assume you support Rupert Murdoch being driven to bankruptcy as well? You know, the foreigner who controls media in the US and pushes his very specific narrative on it while allowing constant violations of basic employment laws like harassment and hiring.



posted on Aug, 4 2020 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: FishBait

Should be 0%

Transactions? Sure. Income? Ridiculous.

It'd also shrink the government by thousands of percentage points




top topics



 
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join