So rich going to have to accept less or have it taken from them?

One more from the link earlier.

The Vermont senator, mounting a liberal insurgent campaign against front-runner Hillary Clinton, also listed between $25,002-$65,000 in credit card debt on his Visa cards. Read more: www.politico.com...

I thought Bernie hated Bankers ?

65 grand in CREDIT CARD debt!!!!!

on a '179,000 salary'.

Ole Sanders sure isn't very good with his money.

$65,000!

That's double the yearly of most of his supporters.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
'the evil rich'.

There is no such thing as "the evil rich". That's just a stupid name the right wing has given to the wealthy because SOME people are asking them to pay their fair share. That doesn't make them "evil" any more than poor people are saintly.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
'the evil rich'.

There is no such thing as "the evil rich". That's just a stupid name the right wing has given to the wealthy because SOME people are asking them to pay their fair share. That doesn't make them "evil" any more than poor people are saintly.

What if I just say 'greedy rich'?
Because I have seen that numerous times today, right here on ATS.

originally posted by: neo96
One more from the link earlier.

The Vermont senator, mounting a liberal insurgent campaign against front-runner Hillary Clinton, also listed between $25,002-$65,000 in credit card debt on his Visa cards. Read more: www.politico.com...

I thought Bernie hated Bankers ?

65 grand in CREDIT CARD debt!!!!!

on a '179,000 salary'.

Ole Sanders sure isn't very good with his money.

$65,000!

That's double the yearly of most of his supporters.

No, he is socialist. He likes to spend other people's money. Now you see why he doesn't car if his proposals would amount to $18 trillion! Just charge it!

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: the owlbear

The whole thing is a scam.

That I agree with but not in the way you mean.

Sanders party created fiat currency via the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

And use that creation to pit American against American, and for no other reason than the power of a vote.

Scam indeed.

The state created money. The state owns money. The State gets to create taxes.The State gets to take however much it wants. Whenever it wants.

The Democratic Party of 1913 is NOT the Democratic Party of 2016. You know that. Sanders is an independent running on the Democratic ticket.

You bring up some thought provoking points sometimes, but if you're complaining about pitting American against American, you seriously need to go and re-read ALL of your posts on ATS...pot meet kettle.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
'the evil rich'.

There is no such thing as "the evil rich". That's just a stupid name the right wing has given to the wealthy because SOME people are asking them to pay their fair share. That doesn't make them "evil" any more than poor people are saintly.

Not the States place, or the governments place, and ANYONE's place to 'ask' such a thing.

There is no asking.

The rich 'should pay their fair share' so the 'poor' can go out, and buy MORE STUFF.

The INTENTIONAL targeting of a minority is right as rain with Sanders in his supporters.

So much for the Bill of Rights particularly the 4th, and the 14th amendments.

a reply to: the owlbear

The Democratic Party of 1913 is NOT the Democratic Party of 2016.

Yes it is.

They are just and GREEDY and MATERIALISTIC as they have always been.

Vilify the right when the left is WORSE.

If the term 'greedy rich' is deemed acceptable to use by the left (apparently it is, since they are using it) then we need to look at the word 'greed'.
Greed is one of the seven deadly sins.
This, from Wikipedia:

The concept of seven deadly sins was used throughout the medieval Christian world to teach young people how to avoid evil and embrace the good as is evident in treatises, paintings, sculpture decorations on churches.

Link
I made the word EVIL red in the quote above.

a reply to: Edumakated

I have to say anyone with 65 grand in credit card debt is bad with their money.

And yeah by extension would just charge his champagne wishes, and caviar schemes all on a walmart paycheck.

Sanders is the personification of living beyond ones means.

a reply to: butcherguy

If the term 'greedy rich' is deemed acceptable to use by the left (

Of course it is. Being a richaphobe, and spout their bigotry is what the left calls 'social justice'.

They sure like to say they are hot for minority RIGHTS, but when it comes right down to it.

They only pay lip service to it.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ok. so how do you propose the government recoop that lost tax money?

Same way it makes it now.

OTHER taxes.

The more money a person has the more they spend RIGHT ?

The entire ARGUMENT for robbing from the rich, and giving to the poor.

The difference being.

The STATE stop robbing EVERYONE via the income tax.

So get rid of income tax and raise sales taxes on everything else to compensate?

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DBCowboy

Flat taxes penalize the poorer people more than the richer people. That is an aspect of percentages that I'm not sure you understand completely.

Why not abolish the income tax altother.

Would that be so bad?

People actually NOT working 6 months out a year to pay their 'tax' bill before they start working for themselves?

The income tax needs to go the way of the dodo.

Ok. so how do you propose the government recoop that lost tax money? Because you and I know DAMN well that the government isn't going to reduce spending if it loses tax income any.

Taxes on buying and selling stock. Taxes on luxury cars. Taxes on any purchase over $5000 other than the usual ones on home or vehicle. Taxes on top shelf booze. Taxes on nationally legalized marijuana. I could go on. But those wealthy enough to afford these things would be able to circumvent the system in their purchases just like they circumvent paying taxes...so yeah, other than going balls out Roosevelt, the über rich will never pay up.

So have you done the math to see if that proposal would actually work out yet? Or are you just assuming it could?

Lets face it, there will always be warfare between the haves and have nots.

If there wasn't, politicians would be out of a job.

So if the government makes it where they can just take what they want from the wealthy......judging by how corrupt the government is

How long do you think it will be before they come take it from those who are not?

Careful the slope yup advocate

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes get rid of the income tax.

Didn't say anything about raising other taxes.

Hell between the 'gas guzzler' tax.

Sales tax.

Import tax.

And the GAS TAX the federal government makes enough off of other taxation.

Funny how people think the government 'loses' money when it makes money in other ways.

Particularly that 'sales' tax since people are buying MORE.

They aren't losing anything.

The people actually get to KEEP the fruits of their labor, and spend that CASH however they see fit.

Instead of the STATE blowing it.

a reply to: neo96

If you get rid of income taxes, taxes have to be raised elsewhere to make up for the shortfall of incoming taxes. That's basic math, son. So whether you suggested it or not, it NEEDS to be done if we were to follow through with your plan.

a reply to: FamCore

Fam, I agree- I came from a family of 7. youngest, almost flunked out of high school - started my own local company bout 16yrs ago and did not take a paycheck for 2yrs; I worked 3 part time jobs whilst building my company- fast forward (OH yea, I gave plasma too)

Today- We are a national service provider-

I have taken classes on line to get all of my technical certs-

I am in my 3rd semester of college and have been on the Pres honor roll since day 1-

& I will be 50 this year- in other words, I dont have a lot of sympathy for those who never try. There are way too many opportunities (in the U.S.) that are avail today. I think some people (not to get to far off topic) will not settle for what they are qualified for- hence they arent willing to start at the bottom and work their way up these days.. cough, cough- M I L L I N I A N S ,, cough cough....

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you get rid of income taxes, taxes have to be raised elsewhere to make up for the shortfall of incoming taxes

NO IT DOESN'T.

Funny how left wingers never met a tax they didn't like.

Hell it currently makes over 1.5 trillion in income tax off people.

That money people can use to live on, and INCREASE their personal wealth.

Remember them corporations that 'don't' pay taxes ? Turns out they DO.

There is another $383,499,530,XXX they could be pumping back in to the local economy, and creating jobs that create WEALTH.

To where the people are buying more, and paying OTHER taxes.

www.usdebtclock.org...

How bout stop being so FASCIST, and let people KEEP what they earn?

I know that's asking too much.

a reply to: neo96

Ok so let's do some algebra here since you clearly can't balance a check book.

If the government is bringing in X amount of dollars in taxes, where X is total summation of all types of taxes. If we say that Y is the amount of taxes that the government brings in from income taxes and Z is the total amount of taxes collected without income taxes, we can setup the following equation:

Z + Y = X

If you subtract Y from the equation because you eliminate income taxes you get this:

Z + Y - Y = X - Y or
Z = X - Y

Last I checked X - Y is going to be less than X no matter what numbers you place in for those variables (keep in mind that the numbers have to be non-negative since we are talking about possessed money).

So where are you suggesting the government make up the shortfall for the lost Y? You claim that people will magically spend enough to make up for that amount, but I doubt you've even come CLOSE to calculating if that pipedream would ever hold true or not. At the end of the day, taxes would have to be raised somewhere.

Sorry guy, math doesn't care about partisanship as much as you do. Heck you bring up our total debt which shows that even WITH income taxes, we are still outspending what we bring in. So why do you think that will suddenly become a better situation when the government has less tax income?

How bout stop being so FASCIST, and let people KEEP what they earn?

Read the Constitution, taxes aren't fascism, they are spelled out and in the Constitution as something that is ok to do by the government. And income taxes are an Amendment to the Constitution so they are also Constitutionally allowed.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ok so let's do some algebra here since you clearly can't balance a check book.

That was damn right hilarious because algebra has nothing to do with balancing a check book.

I guess you missed that 18 trillion dollar debt. Because the income tax has been bastardized in to paying the peoples bills instead of the STATE paying it's own.

The very reason it was created in the first place.

The power of taxation was created so the government could fund itself so it could function properly.

The income tax was created back in the day to PAY DOWN DEBT.

The only people bad at 'math' are the people that think we need the income tax.

We don't.

Read the Constitution, taxes aren't fascism, they are spelled out and in the Constitution as something that is ok to do by the government. And income taxes are an Amendment to the Constitution so they are also Constitutionally allowed.

I have feel free to quote where it says the state has the power to take 50% to 90% of a persons income.

In fact there was never ANY mention of the income tax.