Republicans Fair Tax Act

[UT alum]

2 hours ago, BS Wildcats said:

You must have me mistaken for big girl.  I was referring to your condescending remark.  

When did I condescend to you?

 

2 hours ago, BS Wildcats said:

You must have me mistaken for big girl.  I was referring to your condescending remark.  

Snowflake. Now, that’s condescending.

[UT alum]

2 hours ago, baddog said:

Jack Nicholson?

Pay the man! A Few Good Men. We may not agree on politics, but you got a good sense of humor there, man.

[BS Wildcats]

16 minutes ago, UT alum said:

When did I condescend to you?

 

Snowflake. Now, that’s condescending.

This site is populated by the most condescending people I believe I’ve ever seen.
 

These are your words, if you need to be reminded.  Your brain must be as mush as biden’s.

[baddog]

33 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Pay the man! A Few Good Men. We may not agree on politics, but you got a good sense of humor there, man.

My son says that movie is only good for those 5 minutes. 
 

Back on topic….I really can’t figure a best way to tax. 

[LumRaiderFan]

6 hours ago, UT alum said:

Some of that trillion we use to build bombs and tanks and carriers an fighters that grows a defense already bigger than the next five or ten nations would be a start. No tax increase neede there. It would be nice if the 1% paid a little tax.

 

[LumRaiderFan]

6 hours ago, UT alum said:

Some of that trillion we use to build bombs and tanks and carriers an fighters that grows a defense already bigger than the next five or ten nations would be a start. No tax increase neede there. It would be nice if the 1% paid a little tax.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

From the article:
 

In 2020, the bottom half of taxpayers earned 10.2 percent of total AGI and paid 2.3 percent of all federal individual income taxes. The top 1 percent earned 22.2 percent of total AGI and paid 42.3 percent of all federal income taxes.

In all, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $723 billion in income taxes while the bottom 90 percent paid $450 billion.

[UT alum]

51 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

From the article:
 

In 2020, the bottom half of taxpayers earned 10.2 percent of total AGI and paid 2.3 percent of all federal individual income taxes. The top 1 percent earned 22.2 percent of total AGI and paid 42.3 percent of all federal income taxes.

In all, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $723 billion in income taxes while the bottom 90 percent paid $450 billion.

That fits pretty closely to the wealth disparities. The ones who own the most should pay the most to finance a government that allows such skewed discrepancies in wealth.

[UT alum]

2 hours ago, BS Wildcats said:

This site is populated by the most condescending people I believe I’ve ever seen.
 

These are your words, if you need to be reminded.  Your brain must be as mush as biden’s.

All you do is demonize liberals,vilify LBGTQ people, get apoplectic about any Black Lives Matter supporters, talk about asylum seekers like they’re dogs. You can sure dish it out, but jump behind mommy’s skirt when someone comes after you. Sad.

[UT alum]

2 hours ago, baddog said:

My son says that movie is only good for those 5 minutes. 
 

Back on topic….I really can’t figure a best way to tax. 

I think paying based on wealth rather than income would be a lot simpler. Or tie income tax to a percentage based on wealth. “Income inequality isn’t nearly as dangerous for our future as inequalities in wealth”. Alan Greenspan said that a good time back. I believe Ronald Ragass appointed him.

[UT alum]

18 minutes ago, UT alum said:

I think paying based on wealth rather than income would be a lot simpler. Or tie income tax to a percentage based on wealth. “Income inequality isn’t nearly as dangerous for our future as inequalities in wealth”. Alan Greenspan said that a good time back. I believe Ronald Ragass appointed him.

And, I think it’s a pretty good movie front to back, and I’m not a big Tom Cruise fan.

[UT alum]

2 hours ago, baddog said:

My son says that movie is only good for those 5 minutes. 
 

Back on topic….I really can’t figure a best way to tax. 

I should have quoted you on the movie review. I replied to myself

[LumRaiderFan]

42 minutes ago, UT alum said:

That fits pretty closely to the wealth disparities. The ones who own the most should pay the most to finance a government that allows such skewed discrepancies in wealth.

And they do, which you weren’t aware of from your post about the 1%.

Guess what, them paying more wouldn’t make your life any better.

[BS Wildcats]

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

All you do is demonize liberals,vilify LBGTQ people, get apoplectic about any Black Lives Matter supporters, talk about asylum seekers like they’re dogs. You can sure dish it out, but jump behind mommy’s skirt when someone comes after you. Sad.

You show me proof of all of those, then I’ll give you credit.  You won’t be able to.  As far as hiding behind mommy’s skirt, I’m plenty big enough to handle myself.  Seems you’re the one getting butt hurt when someone calls you out on something you deny.  I’ll give you vilifying liberals, you have all lost your minds!

[CardinalBacker]

On 2/3/2023 at 7:06 PM, UT alum said:

I think paying based on wealth rather than income would be a lot simpler. Or tie income tax to a percentage based on wealth. “Income inequality isn’t nearly as dangerous for our future as inequalities in wealth”. Alan Greenspan said that a good time back. I believe Ronald Ragass appointed him.

You're right.. it would be a much simpler route to communism.  I'm fine with taxes on income, but taxation on wealth is not ok, IMO.  We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.... and we're not going to be able to tax our away out of it.  I compare taxation in some ways to tithing.  We're expected to give 10% of what we earn to the church... not a percentage of what we've accumulated AFTER paying tithes upon it in the first place.  I have the same problem with an inheritance tax.  At the end of the day, it's not OUR money, it's that individual's money, and that's a concept that seems to be repulsive to most liberals. 

 

Washington should be taking a long look at loans against wealth as income... with some parameters, of course.  Jeff Bezos shouldn't have been able to argue that all of his stock had no taxable value because the value isn't realized until it's sold (which I agree with), then turn around and finance a lavish lifestyle like no other using tax-free loans taken against his holdings.  That's just not right and should have bipartisan support... Unless, of course, that's how your President funds HIS lavish lifestyle, lol.  

[baddog]

51 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

You're right.. it would be a much simpler route to communism.  I'm fine with taxes on income, but taxation on wealth is not ok, IMO.  We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.... and we're not going to be able to tax our away out of it.  I compare taxation in some ways to tithing.  We're expected to give 10% of what we earn to the church... not a percentage of what we've accumulated AFTER paying tithes upon it in the first place.  I have the same problem with an inheritance tax.  At the end of the day, it's not OUR money, it's that individual's money, and that's a concept that seems to be repulsive to most liberals. 

 

Washington should be taking a long look at loans against wealth as income... with some parameters, of course.  Jeff Bezos shouldn't have been able to argue that all of his stock had no taxable value because the value isn't realized until it's sold (which I agree with), then turn around and finance a lavish lifestyle like no other using tax-free loans taken against his holdings.  That's just not right and should have bipartisan support... Unless, of course, that's how your President funds HIS lavish lifestyle, lol.  

No, Hunter funds Joe’s (the big guy) lifestyle. 

[CardinalBacker]

21 minutes ago, baddog said:

No, Hunter funds Joe’s (the big guy) lifestyle. 

I was talking about Donald Trump.  That's his gig, too. 

I think that's why it wasn't addressed in his tax cut package in 2017.

[baddog]

6 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

I was talking about Donald Trump.  That's his gig, too. 

I think that's why it wasn't addressed in his tax cut package in 2017.

Was it illegal?

[CardinalBacker]

5 minutes ago, baddog said:

Was it illegal?

Absolutely not.  But it probably should be, and he had a chance to fix it... it just wasn't in his best interest.  

Not very "America First," wouldn't you say?

[baddog]

6 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

Absolutely not.  But it probably should be, and he had a chance to fix it... it just wasn't in his best interest.  

Not very "America First," wouldn't you say?

I’d rather my president take illegal monies from foreign foes, launder it, and tuck it away for a rainy day. He has never put America first.
Do you take all the legal deductions afforded to you? Sure you do. So does everyone.  

[CardinalBacker]

12 minutes ago, baddog said:

I’d rather my president take illegal monies from foreign foes, launder it, and tuck it away for a rainy day. He has never put America first.
Do you take all the legal deductions afforded to you? Sure you do. So does everyone.  

It's not about Biden.  It's about the ultra rich living a tax-free existence. 

And about the most egregious loophole in our tax system (in my opinion) being ignored, mostly because the people who create the bills and sign them are currently benefitting from said loophole. 

It's simple... The tax code allows the ultra rich to borrow against assets (which weren't taxed as they were accumulating) and then live a lavish lifestyle while paying no income taxes... Do you think this should be changed? 

[baddog]

42 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

It's not about Biden.  It's about the ultra rich living a tax-free existence. 

And about the most egregious loophole in our tax system (in my opinion) being ignored, mostly because the people who create the bills and sign them are currently benefitting from said loophole. 

It's simple... The tax code allows the ultra rich to borrow against assets (which weren't taxed as they were accumulating) and then live a lavish lifestyle while paying no income taxes... Do you think this should be changed? 

Like you say, they all do it. So I think it very unfair to single out any individual. 
 

To answer your question….. yes, it should be changed….. but it won’t. It would be like voting to cut off your right arm. 

[CardinalBacker]

2 hours ago, baddog said:

Like you say, they all do it. So I think it very unfair to single out any individual. 
 

To answer your question….. yes, it should be changed….. but it won’t. It would be like voting to cut off your right arm. 

I dunno.... I'd like to hope that there are enough lawmakers who AREN'T using that "loophole" that the legislation could be passed.  I doubt, it, though.

 

[LumRaiderFan]

On 2/3/2023 at 7:06 PM, UT alum said:

I think paying based on wealth rather than income would be a lot simpler. Or tie income tax to a percentage based on wealth. “Income inequality isn’t nearly as dangerous for our future as inequalities in wealth”. Alan Greenspan said that a good time back. I believe Ronald Ragass appointed him.

🤦‍♂️

[BS Wildcats]

2 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

I dunno.... I'd like to hope that there are enough lawmakers who AREN'T using that "loophole" that the legislation could be passed.  I doubt, it, though.

 

I doubt it either.  Somehow, some lawmakers are elected with not much, and are millionaires within a term or to.  Strange how that happens?  That legislation will not get changed.  

[CardinalBacker]

14 hours ago, BS Wildcats said:

I doubt it either.  Somehow, some lawmakers are elected with not much, and are millionaires within a term or to.  Strange how that happens?  That legislation will not get changed.  

I dunno… I think that a large number of democrats would be on board… some won’t. I think you’d also have SOME Republicans who’d support it as well. Unfortunately I doubt it would ever see the light of day.