Jump to content

We need GRADUATED taxation on ALL income


Recommended Posts

All of everything below is why I believe we should create a computer program that provides graduated taxation from the medium income to the grossly overpaid, with a top tax bracket of 49% after all deductions.

 

Why should those paid 99% of the income not pay 99% of the taxes instead of only: http://www.cnsnews.c...ent-all-federal ?

 

What is too often forgotten is that those who benefit the most from our system need to support our system the most. They, the CEO's of corporations, need educated workers, and their workers deserve a decent retirement when they are too old to still work. And it is easier for all of us to have our Government provide that retirement and health assistance for those elderly than it is for those CEO's who use their labor to enrich themselves, since owners and bosses change.

 

Also, those CEO's need infrastructure to move their products and employees, and again, government can do that best because of right-of-ways and system longevity.

 

And, of course there is needed policing and defense, again best done by government, OUR U.S.A. GOVERNMENT of WE THE PEOPLE.

 

It is not about raising taxes, it is about shifting the tax burden back to the grossly overpaid, and off the backs of the middle class, barely rich and Public Debt. And there is absolutely no justification for our getting it backwards for the last 30 years.

 

For our system to be fair to all of us, we need more tax brackets; not fewer; graduated taxation for all of us on ALL income.

 

When President Obama signed the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts for the grossly overpaid, he said that we as Americans need to have a national discussion about taxes. The following is a proposal that attempts to return our tax system to one that requires a more equitable share of sacrifice from MULTI-MILLIONAIRES and BILLIONAIRES.

For some 20 years, as we became the most prosperous nation on this planet ever (after all, we paid down WWII Debt and built a space program that landed men on the moon), there were 24 Income Tax Brackets; now there are only 7 Income Tax Brackets. http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States And those earlier years were very good times, with plenty of jobs for everyone.

Contrary to popular opinion, we need more Income Tax Brackets, not fewer.

Below are 16 Marginal Income Tax Brackets that would return us to graduated taxation for the very rich (this is only an example):

No income taxes for any married couple/family with a net income of less than $40,000.00 (after all deductions);

5% for over $40,000.00/year (after all deductions);

and then, 10% for over $80,000.00/year (after all deductions);

and then, 12% for over $100,000.00/year (after all deductions);

and then, 15% for over $200,000.00/year (after all deductions);

and then, 20% for over $300,000.00/year (after all deductions);

and then, 25% for over $500,000.00/year (after all deductions);

and then, 27% for over $800,000.00/year (after all deductions);

and then, 30% for over $1,000,000.00/year (after all deductions);

and then, 33% for over $2,000,000.00/year (after all deductions);

and then, 35% for over $3,000,000.00/year (after all deductions);

and then, 38% for over $5,000,000.00/year (after all deductions);

and then, 40% for over $10,000,000.00/year (after all deductions);

and then, 42% for over $25,000,000.00/year (after all deductions);

and then, 45% for over $50,000,000.00/year (after all deductions);

and then, 47% for over $75,000,000.00/year (after all deductions);

and then, 49% for over $100 million/year (after all deductions).

All of the amounts that these percentages are based on should be adjusted upward every few years to account for inflation.

A top marginal income tax rate of as much as 49% for those married couples making more than $125 million/yr. to support a strong economic system is not unreasonable if we remember that before President John F. Kennedy reduced the top rate in 1964 to 71%, that top Income Tax rate was 81 - 94% for over 20 years, at a time when we became the most prosperous nation this planet has ever witnessed!

I think it fair to say that it is partly because we were one of the first nations ever to tap into the wealth of the ultra-rich with an Income Tax System that it happened here. There is good historical evidence that the decrease in Income Tax rates to such lows of 15% for many of the grossly overpaid, along with ever higher Sales Taxes which affect the poor and middle class the most, has reversed the lowered poverty rates that we were seeing just a few decades ago and widened the gap between the the richest and the poor.

And of course we should simplify the Income Tax Code/Forms by removing conflicting language.

Other important reforms should include:

Removing the Stock Wash Trade Rule presently limited to non-professionals.

Allowing full claim, in the year occurred, all capital losses, presently limited to $3,000/year.

Eliminating the 15% rate now allowed to those holding securities longer than 1 year.

Combine capital gains with income and payroll taxes for the same graduated tax rates. In the interest of fairness, the grossly overpaid who make their money on the rise of stock prices shouldn’t be allowed to pay a smaller percentage than the middle class who work hard for their money.

And yes, those who have benefited the most from our system should pay with equal sacrifice.

It is important to note that RAISING TAX RATES, after deductions, on the grossly overpaid will cause them to INVEST to GET THOSE DEDUCTIONS, and THOSE INVESTMENTS WILL STIMULATE OUR ECONOMY.

And, leaving one individual with more than $51 million (after all deductions) and another with $38,000 (or less) for the year is not socialism; socialism would be leaving them BOTH with $38,000.

The ideal is to have a system that provides us with what we as voters determine desirable to be provided by our government without indebting our children with any more than will benefit them.

It is also important to note that as the "Baby Boomers" move into old age, our Social Security and Medicare systems will be stressed with a bulge in recipients for a few decades that will eventually be passed through; but it will take larger contributions (by these listed rates here & an elimination of the Social Security Income Cap) from the grossly overpaid to maintain the compact that our "Greatest Generation" made for their grandchildren to have medical care and a supplementary income when they become the elderly.

Again, our system should be one of graduated taxation for all of us, which is why we need more tax brackets; not fewer.

http://www.aflcio.or...ghest-Paid-CEOs qz.com/74271

And remember, higher taxes on the grossly overpaid would make it harder for them to buy politicians.

What this chart shows us is that, high taxes on the grossly overpaid did not produce less tax revenue; nor does it show less growth in the economy:

us_fed_debt_20c.png

 

Graduated taxation is FAIR because ALL of US are subject to it as we become richer, or at least we should be (unfortunately, since Reagan that ceased to be true, as the tax BURDEN was shifted away from the very rich and onto the backs of the middle class and barely rich:

 

.CNQqqomVAAALlEn.jpgCYhm8a0UQAIiww4.jpg

CYhm8keU0AAN-eH.jpgClbe6PeVAAE4fIj.jpg

 

And finally, if we we are truly worried about earned entitlements and welfare for the disabled bankrupting our safety-nets, then we need to eliminate the Social Security income cap to save Social Security, and make Medicare a graduated taxation on all income to save and expand it as a Public Health Option for all of us, because we all deserve a secure retirement and health care in our senior years, and we can ensure that most easily as a nation, rather than trying to rely on individual companies that too often file bankruptcy while giving their grossly overpaid CEO's enormous "GOLDEN PARACHUTE RETIREMENTS" while at the same time screwing the rest of their employees in their elderly years.

 

To repeat, it is easier for all of US to have our Government provide our retirement income and health assistance than it is for those who use our labor to enrich themselves to provide US with pensions and health care, since owners & bosses change all the time.

 

https://twitter.com/...405103303974913

 

https://twitter.com/supraTruth/status/806281127509966848

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sales tax will provide.

 

Really rich people buy a lot of stuff.

 

 

kj

The middle class & poor pay a much higher % of their income on sales taxes than do the grossly overpaid.

Everyone paying the same percentage of their income is the only fair way. Exact same percentage for everyone regardless of income, investment, ect.

Not fair that the poor & middle class & barely rich have to pay higher percentages just so the grossly overpaid can pay smaller percentages.

 

CNQqqomVAAALlEn.jpgCYhm8a0UQAIiww4.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The middle class & poor pay a much higher % of their income on sales taxes than do the grossly overpaid.

Not fair that the poor & middle class & barely rich have to pay higher percentages just so the grossly overpaid can pay smaller percentages.

 

CNQqqomVAAALlEn.jpgCYhm8a0UQAIiww4.jpg

 

Contrary to your rant and false beliefs, "rich people" do NOT benefit more from government provided anything like roads, bridges, etc.

 

The simple fact is, the "middle class" and everyone on each side benefit EQUALLY, so the tax system should be EQUAL for all.

 

And to shut your pie hole once and for all, the FOUNDERS of this nation were VEHEMENTLY opposed to "income taxes" in ANY FORM.

 

It's why they set up the system where the STATES would fund the FEDERAL government without a DIRECT TAX to the INDIVIDUALS living in this nation.

 

Now, you need to pick up a history book and then you can take your BULLSHIT and play in some OTHER playground, shitstain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck off supratruth I already got you to admit you are just jealous of those doing better than you and you want to "get" them

You admitted there is a better way but you don't care

You want to "get" people

Scum

A LOT of LIES there, turd bucket, & it smells like this:C7ORm0lV4AAXTFe.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd just be happy if liberals started paying taxes instead of being leech's on society.


A LOT of LIES there, turd bucket, & it smells like this:C7ORm0lV4AAXTFe.jpg

 

Wow. That's a shitty photoshop.

Head is out of proportion, crappy blending at the neck, and no blood on the blade from the freshly cut tail.

 

But liberals are stupid fucks. They don't care about the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Contrary to your rant and false beliefs, "rich people" do NOT benefit more from government provided anything like roads, bridges, etc.

 

The simple fact is, the "middle class" and everyone on each side benefit EQUALLY, so the tax system should be EQUAL for all.

 

And to shut your pie hole once and for all, the FOUNDERS of this nation were VEHEMENTLY opposed to "income taxes" in ANY FORM.

 

It's why they set up the system where the STATES would fund the FEDERAL government without a DIRECT TAX to the INDIVIDUALS living in this nation.

 

Now, you need to pick up a history book and then you can take your BULLSHIT and play in some OTHER playground, shitstain.

Our original Constitution included slavery also.

Our Constitution includes all Amendments; 1913 16th Amendment clarified that tax dilemma.

What is too often forgotten is that those who benefit the most from our system need to support our system the most. They, the CEO's of corporations, need educated workers, and their workers deserve a decent retirement when they are too old to still work. And it is easier for all of us to have our Government provide that retirement and health assistance for those elderly than it is for those CEO's who use their labor to enrich themselves, since owners and bosses change.

Also, those CEO's need infrastructure to move their products and employees, and again, government can do that best because of right-of-ways and system longevity.

And, of course there is needed policing and defense, again best done by government, OUR U.S.A. GOVERNMENT of WE THE PEOPLE.

It is not about raising taxes, it is about shifting the tax burden back to the grossly overpaid, and off the backs of the middle class, barely rich and Public Debt. And there is absolutely no justification for our getting it backwards for the last 30 years.

For our system to be fair to all of us, we need more tax brackets; not fewer; graduated taxation for all of us on ALL income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Our original Constitution included slavery also.

Our Constitution includes all Amendments; 1913 16th Amendment clarified that tax dilemma.

What is too often forgotten is that those who benefit the most from our system need to support our system the most. They, the CEO's of corporations, need educated workers, and their workers deserve a decent retirement when they are too old to still work. And it is easier for all of us to have our Government provide that retirement and health assistance for those elderly than it is for those CEO's who use their labor to enrich themselves, since owners and bosses change.

Also, those CEO's need infrastructure to move their products and employees, and again, government can do that best because of right-of-ways and system longevity.

And, of course there is needed policing and defense, again best done by government, OUR U.S.A. GOVERNMENT of WE THE PEOPLE.

It is not about raising taxes, it is about shifting the tax burden back to the grossly overpaid, and off the backs of the middle class, barely rich and Public Debt. And there is absolutely no justification for our getting it backwards for the last 30 years.

For our system to be fair to all of us, we need more tax brackets; not fewer; graduated taxation for all of us on ALL income.

 

 

You are such a twerp, jr. shitstain.

 

Grow up and one day you might be a FULL FLEDGED shitstain!!

 

NO ONE benefits MORE from infrastructure than another.

 

You seem to forget that the ROADS, BRIDGES, AND RAILWAYS BENEFIT EVERYONE.

 

EQUALLY.

 

Goddamn jr. shitstains are such ignorant little ass gravy sucks.

 

Now run along and suck some more of that ass gravy you do dearly love.

 

And, NO, our Constitution did NOT include "slavery" and when you find it, let me know.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You are such a twerp, jr. shitstain.

 

Grow up and one day you might be a FULL FLEDGED shitstain!!

 

NO ONE benefits MORE from infrastructure than another.

 

You seem to forget that the ROADS, BRIDGES, AND RAILWAYS BENEFIT EVERYONE.

 

EQUALLY.

 

Goddamn jr. shitstains are such ignorant little ass gravy sucks.

 

Now run along and suck some more of that ass gravy you do dearly love.

article-2296269-18CD2973000005DC-906_634

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd just be happy if liberals started paying taxes instead of being leech's on society.

 

Wow. That's a shitty photoshop.

Head is out of proportion, crappy blending at the neck, and no blood on the blade from the freshly cut tail.

 

But liberals are stupid fucks. They don't care about the truth.

Lying seems to the last defense for u deplorable con artists;

 

http://www.snopes.com/donald-trumps-son-game-hunting-photos/

 

trumps-son-tiger-kill.png

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our original Constitution included slavery also.

 

Our Constitution includes all Amendments; 1913 16th Amendment clarified that tax dilemma.

Too bad the 16th wasn't ever properly ratified.

But that didn't stop our dishonest, greedy government from lying, and pretending it was.

 

Bill Benson's findings, published in "The Law That Never Was," make a convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified and that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913. What follows is a summary of some of the major findings for many of the states, showing that their ratifications were not legal and should not have been counted.

The 16th amendment had been sent out in 1909 to the state governors for ratification by the state legislatures after having been passed by Congress.

 

There were 48 states at that time, and three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order for it to be ratified. The process took almost the whole term of the Taft administration, from 1909 to 1913.

 

Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it. We will now examine some of the key evidence Bill Benson found regarding the approval of the amendment in many of those states.

 

In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words "on income" from the text, so they weren't even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it!

 

In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way.

 

Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state's approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past the "presumptive conclusion" argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong.

 

If we subtract Kentucky and Oklahoma from the 38 approvals above, the count of valid approvals falls to 36, the exact number needed for ratification.

 

If any more states can be shown to have had invalid approvals, the 16th amendment must be regarded as null and void.

 

The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by Congress until after the next election of state legislators. The intent, of course, is to give the proposed amendment a chance to become an issue in the state legislative elections so that the people can have a voice in determining the outcome. It also provides a cooling off period to reduce the tendency to approve an idea just because it happens to be the moment's trend. You've probably already guessed that the Tennessee legislature did not hold off on voting for the amendment until after the next election, and you'd be right - they didn't; hence, they acted upon it illegally before they were authorized to do so. They also violated their own state constitution by failing to read the resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18. These state constitutional violations make their approval of the amendment null and void. Their approval is and was invalid, and it brings the number of approving states down to 35, one less than required for ratification.

 

Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority. Now the number is down to 33.

 

Twelve other states, besides Tennessee, violated provisions in their constitutions requiring that a bill be read on three different days before voting on it. This is not a trivial requirement. It allows for a cooling off period; it enables members who may be absent one day to be present on another; it allows for a better familiarity with, and understanding of, the measure under consideration, since some members may not always read a bill or resolution before voting on it (believe it or not!). States violating this procedure were: Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia,

 

Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois. Now the number is reduced to 21 states legally ratifying the amendment.

When Secretary Knox transmitted the proposed amendment to the states, official certified and sealed copies were sent. Likewise, when state results were returned to Knox, it was required that the documents, including the resolution that was actually approved, be properly certified, signed, and sealed by the appropriate official(s). This is no more than any ordinary citizen has to do in filing any legal document, so that it's authenticity is assured; otherwise it is not acceptable and is meaningless. How much more important it is to authenticate a constitutional amendment! Yet a number of states did not do this, returning uncertified, unsigned, and/or unsealed copies, and did not rectify their negligence even after being reminded and warned by Knox. The most egregious offenders were Ohio, California, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Minnesota - which did not send any copy at all, so Knox could not have known what they even voted on! Since four of these states were already disqualified above, California is now subtracted from the list of valid approvals, reducing it to 20.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What this chart shows us is that, high taxes on the grossly overpaid did not produce less tax revenue; nor does it show less growth in the economy:

us_fed_debt_20c.png

 

Graduated taxation is FAIR because ALL of US are subject to it as we become richer, or at least we should be (unfortunately, since Reagan that ceased to be true, as the tax BURDEN was shifted away from the very rich and onto the backs of the middle class and barely rich:

 

 

This is all you need to take away from this steaming pile of shit. Look at the phrase "grossly overpaid". That is a complete judgement on what someone else earns.

 

It isn't fair. it is tyranny. You assume that under this tax system people will be come richer. You also assume that the rich will stay in the country. Both of which you are wrong. Some will get rich, that is what happens in a capitalist system but you are greatly reducing the opportunity for people to get rich.

 

Your "plan" such is more leftist bullshit aimed at controlling people. Nothing in your plan helps people to become rich. It only helps the rich decide to move out of the country and thus taking their money with them. We are then left with everyone else who are punish for making more money. Under you system, why would anyone want to move up in the system, when they have to work harder to make up what you are taking.

You don't want help people move up. You want to bring the rich down. Go fuck your self.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lying seems to the last defense for u deplorable con artists;

 

http://www.snopes.com/donald-trumps-son-game-hunting-photos/

 

 

Lying seems to the last defense for u deplorable con artists;

 

 

 

Things are not how they seem then.....Liberals........cant fix stupid!!!!!!!!!!!

Too bad the 16th wasn't ever properly ratified.

But that didn't stop our dishonest, greedy government from lying, and pretending it was.

 

Bill Benson's findings, published in "The Law That Never Was," make a convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified and that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913. What follows is a summary of some of the major findings for many of the states, showing that their ratifications were not legal and should not have been counted.

The 16th amendment had been sent out in 1909 to the state governors for ratification by the state legislatures after having been passed by Congress.

 

There were 48 states at that time, and three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order for it to be ratified. The process took almost the whole term of the Taft administration, from 1909 to 1913.

 

Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it. We will now examine some of the key evidence Bill Benson found regarding the approval of the amendment in many of those states.

 

In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words "on income" from the text, so they weren't even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it!

 

In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way.

 

Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state's approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past the "presumptive conclusion" argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong.

 

If we subtract Kentucky and Oklahoma from the 38 approvals above, the count of valid approvals falls to 36, the exact number needed for ratification.

 

If any more states can be shown to have had invalid approvals, the 16th amendment must be regarded as null and void.

 

The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by Congress until after the next election of state legislators. The intent, of course, is to give the proposed amendment a chance to become an issue in the state legislative elections so that the people can have a voice in determining the outcome. It also provides a cooling off period to reduce the tendency to approve an idea just because it happens to be the moment's trend. You've probably already guessed that the Tennessee legislature did not hold off on voting for the amendment until after the next election, and you'd be right - they didn't; hence, they acted upon it illegally before they were authorized to do so. They also violated their own state constitution by failing to read the resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18. These state constitutional violations make their approval of the amendment null and void. Their approval is and was invalid, and it brings the number of approving states down to 35, one less than required for ratification.

 

Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority. Now the number is down to 33.

 

Twelve other states, besides Tennessee, violated provisions in their constitutions requiring that a bill be read on three different days before voting on it. This is not a trivial requirement. It allows for a cooling off period; it enables members who may be absent one day to be present on another; it allows for a better familiarity with, and understanding of, the measure under consideration, since some members may not always read a bill or resolution before voting on it (believe it or not!). States violating this procedure were: Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia,

 

Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois. Now the number is reduced to 21 states legally ratifying the amendment.

When Secretary Knox transmitted the proposed amendment to the states, official certified and sealed copies were sent. Likewise, when state results were returned to Knox, it was required that the documents, including the resolution that was actually approved, be properly certified, signed, and sealed by the appropriate official(s). This is no more than any ordinary citizen has to do in filing any legal document, so that it's authenticity is assured; otherwise it is not acceptable and is meaningless. How much more important it is to authenticate a constitutional amendment! Yet a number of states did not do this, returning uncertified, unsigned, and/or unsealed copies, and did not rectify their negligence even after being reminded and warned by Knox. The most egregious offenders were Ohio, California, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Minnesota - which did not send any copy at all, so Knox could not have known what they even voted on! Since four of these states were already disqualified above, California is now subtracted from the list of valid approvals, reducing it to 20.

 

This is all you need to take away from this steaming pile of shit. Look at the phrase "grossly overpaid". That is a complete judgement on what someone else earns.

 

It isn't fair. it is tyranny. You assume that under this tax system people will be come richer. You also assume that the rich will stay in the country. Both of which you are wrong. Some will get rich, that is what happens in a capitalist system but you are greatly reducing the opportunity for people to get rich.

 

Your "plan" such is more leftist bullshit aimed at controlling people. Nothing in your plan helps people to become rich. It only helps the rich decide to move out of the country and thus taking their money with them. We are then left with everyone else who are punish for making more money. Under you system, why would anyone want to move up in the system, when they have to work harder to make up what you are taking.

You don't want help people move up. You want to bring the rich down. Go fuck your self.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You are such a twerp, jr. shitstain.

 

Grow up and one day you might be a FULL FLEDGED shitstain!!

 

NO ONE benefits MORE from infrastructure than another.

 

You seem to forget that the ROADS, BRIDGES, AND RAILWAYS BENEFIT EVERYONE.

 

EQUALLY.

 

Goddamn jr. shitstains are such ignorant little ass gravy sucks.

 

Now run along and suck some more of that ass gravy you do dearly love.

 

And, NO, our Constitution did NOT include "slavery" and when you find it, let me know.

U are much worse than what U call me.

 

Dumchits like U are the reason our DEBT HAS EXPLODED EVER SINCE REAGAN SHIFTED THE TAX BURDEN AWAY FROM THE GROSSLY OVERPAID TO THE BARELY RICH, U IGNORANT ASS!

 

CNQqqomVAAALlEn.jpgClbe6PeVAAE4fIj.jpg

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all you need to take away from this steaming pile of shit. Look at the phrase "grossly overpaid". That is a complete judgement on what someone else earns.

 

It isn't fair. it is tyranny. You assume that under this tax system people will be come richer. You also assume that the rich will stay in the country. Both of which you are wrong. Some will get rich, that is what happens in a capitalist system but you are greatly reducing the opportunity for people to get rich.

 

Your "plan" such is more leftist bullshit aimed at controlling people. Nothing in your plan helps people to become rich. It only helps the rich decide to move out of the country and thus taking their money with them. We are then left with everyone else who are punish for making more money. Under you system, why would anyone want to move up in the system, when they have to work harder to make up what you are taking.

You don't want help people move up. You want to bring the rich down. Go fuck your self.

When a CEO is given a $120 million "Golden Retirement Package" but complains that his company can't afford $15.00/hr. for his workers, he is GROSSLY OVERPAID.

 

http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/Paywatch-2014/100-Highest-Paid-CEOs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pictures were originally posted on the website for the company that ran the hunting trip to the Matetsi area of Zimbabwe.

The punks posed for the photos, & there are plenty of links to them, whether U idiot CONS want to admit to it in print or not.

CnxlOqgW8AATJy5_1_.jpg?1469000669

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/20/1550051/-Calling-all-animal-lovers-Trump-s-sons-are-proud-murderers-of-endangered-species

 

I`m am super...at lyin

 

 

 

No thanks; CnxlOqgW8AATJy5_1_.jpg?1469000669

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amer

 

America was DIRT POOR back then, but I'm sure U missed that in your history classes since U ppl have always hated school.

^^ This stupid fuck actually believes our country became great because we taxed people.

Unfortunately he refuses to pay any taxes himself because he's leech on society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ This stupid fuck actually believes our country became great because we taxed people.

Unfortunately he refuses to pay any taxes himself because he's leech on society.

For some 20 years, as we became the most prosperous nation on this planet ever (after all, we paid down WWII Debt and built a space program that landed men on the moon), there were 24 Income Tax Brackets; now there are only 7 Income Tax Brackets. http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States And those earlier years were very good times, with plenty of jobs for everyone.

 

UNIONS helped US to become great, as Americans finally had decent paying jobs with 40 hr. work weeks.

 

& Social Security allowed US to invest, believing that we would still have SOMETHING at the end of our lives even if all of our other bets failed. There is good evidence that THAT is why we prospered when other countries w/o it failed.

 

Just shamefully DEPLORABLE that now there are so many uneducated assholes who never learned this because they hate schools & unions, & then whine that there are no good paying jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...