Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by Bic_Cherry, Oct 8, 2019.
...because that's how you think, despite your grand efforts to sanitize it
Equitable means you pay the same dollar cost as me
Stop worrying about "how I think", and explain in logic how YOUR propositions are "accurate".
"60% of Americans cannot find $1000 from savings in an emergency"
Logically, one must conclude "equitable" is related to ability to pay.
So you want to steal people's money to address this "issue"?
If you want free ****, ask your mom.
Should I wipe your ass for you too?
You haven't created that logical proof yet
Same challenge to you:
Explain in logic how "equitable contributions", required under rule of law (to avoid anarchy), are equivalent to "extorted with truncheons and guns".
Again: Stop worrying about "how I think", and explain in logic how YOUR propositions are "accurate".
(talk about the pot calling the kettle black...)
...er ability to pay? How do you propose getting money out of people that don't have it, or are already on the poverty line?
(see....that's how logic works, have a go yourself)
You've plainly demonstrated that you want subsidized. I don't care how you attempt to justify it
You have ability to pay.
Stop hiding behind the poor to disguise your desire to get your hands on other people's stuff.
Your emotional heart string posts are cute, really
Of course you don't care, BECAUSE you cannot explain your propositions, so you take the only escape route ...which is "I don't care..."
Fortunately I do have the ability to pay, but many do not. Therefore I recognise ability to pay is part of an equitable tax system.
So I don't have to hide behind anyone, and I don't have a desire to "get my hands on other people's stuff" … which is the assertion you still have to prove logically, and are unable to do so, as noted above.
You should you go help some of these poor folks with your personal time, energy and resources and get your hand out of your neighbor's pocket.
Um, because they aren't "contributions". They are taxes, which are imposed with truncheons and guns.
If they were contributions, thes leechers would give nothing
It is an analogy, but a very apt and valid one. The productive are stuck on the treadmill that powers the escalator the privileged ride up at their leisure.
Not to just make the treadmill go faster, I won't.
<yawn> I guess that must be why I oppose personal income and corporate profits taxes....
You have no facts or logic to offer, so you have to resort to just makin' up disingenuous and unsupported ad hominem $#!+ again. Simple.
Every privilege you (and the companies you own shares of) own robs everyone else.
<yawn> It is the privileged who are the leeches, taking from others in return for no contribution, and I will thank you to remember it.
Does your professor know you're posting his lectures online?
That's the only way to take from others?
No professor I ever heard of has ever given such a lecture. Perhaps you can identify one...?
It's the major way politicians do it to give to others.
You made an unsupported accusation. Let's see you back it up with a direct, verbatim, in-context quote.
LOL! That would be the very opposite of equitable. The two most fundamental and widely accepted principles of sound taxation policy are "ability to pay" and "beneficiary pay." Ability to pay is measured by assets or net worth. Benefit received is measured by value of privileges owned. So taxation should be proportional to value of privileges owned.
I thought the principle was, "I will kill you if you don't give me the money I want." How civilized.
What does that have to do with your desire to get subsidized? You can afford to pay full price.
No, that would be a different principle. The correct principle is, "If you want to continue to enjoy the benefit of the privileges government gives you, repay the publicly created value you are forcibly taking from the community."
So, how is that comment different from, "Meeza hatesa gubmint!"
They can come up with an infinite number of reasons to justify their desire to get your money given to them
You are the one who demands to be subsidized, not me. I advocate justice. You demand privilege.
That doesn't mean I should justly pay for what you are taking.
"Meeza hatesa to pay for my own ****"
Separate names with a comma.