If you HAD to Vote for One...

So You HAVE to Vote for ONE of These Characters...

  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 66 26.1%
  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 187 73.9%

  • Total voters
    253
Status
Not open for further replies.
Forbes Welcome

the top few percent are covering the majority. this type of thing has got to stop. the only fair solution would be a flat tax. no loop holes, no EIC's, no returns. nothing. dissolve the IRS, create a basic flat tax, and hold everyone accountable to the same standard.



from that article,

and cost the California treasury money

its disgusting that they feel entitled to that money in any way.
this isn't just a CA or state issue. the federal government works, and thinks the same way.
 
Would it boggle your mind to know many people have the capacity to care about BOTH the unprecedented non disclosure of the Donald's tax returns AND Hillary's shenanigans?

I can't speak to the rest of your post, much of it seems to violate our very strict rules here in off topic.

No it wouldn't.

It's just so ridiculous to see 90% of the media chastise Trump for not releasing his personal information, but they let Hildog slide on EVERYTHING. She has done many criminal things, and the media, most here and the populace in general just lets it go and talk about tax returns and sound bites instead- it's crazy.



Not sure what I wrote that violates the rules, but if you believe I did report me to a mod and they can discuss it with me/correct the issue.
 
The debt we have is a huge issue, but it is one created by the government, made worse by BOTH R's and D's over and over again. No matter who get's elected the debt grows and the economy gets worse- it's been going on for too long now.

Raising taxes isn't gonna do squat to get us out of debt.

We need to stop regulating and taxing business out of the USA.

We need to stop making trade deals that benefit other countries.

We need to stop giving $34 Billion+ dollars a year in aid to other countries. We need it here- screw the other countries. Not a penny more.

We need to stop throwing money at problems and "bandaiding" them and instead come up with long term cohesive solutions.

The federal government needs to be gutted. There are so many alphabet agencies and the amount of pork and bloat is outrageous! In all sectors.

We need to rethink our entire tax code, flat tax- everyone pays, no one gets a refund- not one person doesn't have a tax responsibility. We could gut 4/5 of the IRS if we simplify things. That would save billions right there.

We need to get the governments talons out of every industry and let competition/free market take over. We need to stop the Keynesian economic madness.

The federal government is a self licking ice cream cone. It must be gutted and limited to run lean and mean.

A good start would be term limits for congress critters. Too much cronyism and corruption. The game is rigged and the rules are against the citizenry.

Get rid of the Federal Reserve.

Incentives for business to come back to the USA- tax credits, streamlining and limiting regulations. Make it profitable for businesses to operate here and they will come back here.

We need to get illegal immigration under control. It's a huge cost, it's cumulative and most of it hidden from view.

We've got a lot of problems, but increasing the purview of the federal government, continuing to spend ourselves into oblivion and taxing the producers to death is NOT the solution and will add gasoline to the fire.

Our debt and unfunded liabilities are in the multiple hundred trillions. It cannot be sustained.

The longer we kick the can down the road the worse the correction is going to be.
 
Yes professor, paying off the debt is akin to paying off the mortgage and eliminating the deficit is akin to not using your credit card.

The point made stands. The problem is spending, not taxes.

Right, but how do you start to pay off your mortgage when you're still racking up more credit card debt every month?? The first step is to get out of the red so you have money to put towards the mortgage. Deficit vs debt.

I agree that there needs to be some reduction in spending as well, although we may disagree about where that money should come from. But I think tax reform is a huge part of the solution in particular looking at top earners.



see the bolded above. it in fact was YOU that said that was her point, not I.

You said:

"yes, the system is rigged. she benefits from it as much, if not more than he does. yet, will she ever admit to, or bring attention to that? doubtful."

Then I said:

"Thats exactly what she was trying to do. The entire point she was trying to make...."

Then you said:

"so she was trying to say SHE has been exploiting the law and the taxpayers, as a government employee, by saying that trump, a private citizen was doing it?"

My statement was in reference to the system being rigged. Thats what she was trying to bring attention to with her statements about Trump's taxes, or lack thereof.

I wasn't saying anything, I was asking a question. where did that money come from?
yeah, because her taxes would show illegal embezzlement.:rolleyes:
though again, there is the issue with their foundation.

You were asking where her money came from after they were supposedly 'broke' leaving the white house. I told you that you could check her tax returns as they are publicly available. End of story.
If you think there is some sort of embezzlement going on or something else illegal the onus is on you to provide some sort of evidence.
 
THE HISTORY OF TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are - Business Insider

TopTaxBracket_TaxRate.jpg~original


BusinessInsider said:
This analysis revealed a lot of surprising conclusions, including the following:

Today's government spending levels are indeed too high, at least relative to the average level of tax revenue the government has generated over the past 60 years. Unless Americans are willing to radically increase the amount of taxes they pay relative to GDP, government spending must be cut.

Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.

Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now).

Periods of very low tax rates have been followed by periods with very high tax rates, and vice versa. So history suggests that tax rates will soon start going up.
 
Last edited:
[MENTION=68039]-JD-[/MENTION] do you believe the government is entitled to that tax money? any of it? do you believe that it belongs to them FIRST, and then gets handed back to the citizens?
 
That is a fundamental difference between a liberal and a conservative.

A lib starts from the premise that the government is entitled to ALL your income because the government knows best how to spend money. The onus is therefore on the people to justify why they should keep some of it.

A conservative demands the government justify every last penny that is taken from the citizen.
 
so she was trying to say SHE has been exploiting the law and the taxpayers, as a government employee, by saying that trump, a private citizen was doing it?


speaking of her modest salary. how much does she make, and what is she worth now?
its been reported they were broke when they left the WH. where DID all that money come from?

are you dense? I never said anything about embezzlement, YOU did.

You certainly implied wrong doing.
 
[MENTION=68039]-JD-[/MENTION] do you believe the government is entitled to that tax money? any of it? do you believe that it belongs to them FIRST, and then gets handed back to the citizens?


Talk about a loaded question. What's your point?
 
The last 2 paragraphs about how this isn't fraud related make me laugh the most. Sad the denial people are willing to live in.

http://m.richmond.com/news/virginia/article_e008ce00-0365-57a2-95c0-4d9aa70012f9.html?mode=jqm


"Harrisonburg officials and the FBI are investigating allegations of voter registration fraud after officials say almost 20 voter applications were turned in under the names of dead people.


Harrisonburg Registrar Debbie Logan said Thursday that investigators have found from 18 to 20 potentially fraudulent registrations. The Rockingham County Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office confirmed Thursday that an investigation is underway, but offered no additional details on the case.

The applications were turned in by a voter registration group called HarrisonburgVOTES, officials said. The group’s representatives could not be reached for comment Thursday. No charges have been filed.

The Breeze, the student newspaper of James Madison University, reported that the applications were submitted by a student working for the group. The problem came to light when an employee in the registrar’s office noticed a new registration had come in from Richard Claybrook Sr., the late father of a well-known local judge.

“When they used a distinguished resident of Harrisonburg’s name and address, it came to the attention of an employee who has worked in the city for many years,” Logan said.

“We were pretty disgusted that they would use his name,” Richard Claybrook Jr. said of his father, who died in 2014. “He was a retired educator and had served in World War II. He was always a law-abiding citizen.”

Logan said applications using a deceased person’s real name and address but a false social security number would not be flagged in the voter system.

The fraudulent voters are still technically registered as the investigation continues, Logan said, but if her office receives an absentee ballot from one of the dead voters, it would react appropriately. Logan said she expects the State Board of Elections and her local electoral board will allow her to cancel the registrations before the Nov. 8 election.

Republican lawmakers held a news conference call Thursday to call attention to the investigation, which they said proves voter fraud is real and validates their push for strong voter ID laws.

“Often times we hear our Democrat colleagues suggest that voter fraud doesn’t exist in Virginia or is a myth,” said House Speaker William H. Howell, R-Stafford. “Well it does indisputably exist.”

“If it hadn’t been for the vigilance of a citizen, this fraud effort may never have been uncovered until it was too late,” said Del. Mark L. Cole, R-Spotsylvania, who chairs the House Privileges and Elections Committee.

Others weren’t convinced that the case represents a close brush with election fraud.

Del. Marcus B. Simon, D-Fairfax, said it’s “very disingenuous” to suggest the applications were part of a large-scale fraud, because votes would have to be cast either in person by elderly impostors or through absentee ballots sent to real home addresses.

“There’s no way any reasonable person could conclude that this was part of an effort to actually cast votes for people that aren’t able to cast votes,” Simon said."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Only a lib would see it as a silly question because they do not recognize the fundamental issue.

A conservative recognizes that some taxes are needed for the good order of society.

But, the authority to collect taxes is ALWAYS granted by the people.

Government is NEVER entitled to the the individual's labor. It is given, not taken.
 
It's a silly question. Is the government entitled to it? Meaning having legal authority to collect taxes. Yes.



There is a difference between entitled and legal authority to collect. The legal authority is granted by the people and the people's representatives through the passage of laws, bonds, and initiatives. Entitled would imply they do not need permission to change taxes and could arbitrary decided they want more money and take it.
ffe31883215ee58e91c65a08f5c98d78.png

ec4aa049a73826ca86006abf1892d99d.png



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
en·ti·tle
inˈtīdl,enˈtīdl/
verb
past tense: entitled; past participle: entitled
1.
give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.
"employees are normally entitled to severance pay"
 
en·ti·tle
inˈtīdl,enˈtīdl/
verb
past tense: entitled; past participle: entitled
1.
give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.
"employees are normally entitled to severance pay"



You don't see what's wrong with your usage of it?
They do not have a legal right to take taxes. They are granted the permission to enforce a lawfully passed tax. This permission is granted by the people via their elected representatives.

Congress by the 16th amendment has authority to charge a federal income tax only. No other taxes may be assessed unless the bill originated in the House of Representatives. If they jack up the income tax too high we can vote new people in. Taking someone's money is about the only way to get their attention nowadays. So you will notice that the use kid gloves when discussing personal income tax. But those "evil" corporations nobody cares about so they threaten to tax them in to oblivion. But this would still take a legally proposed tax bill based by congress and signed by the president.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
278,316
Messages
3,554,120
Members
248,016
Latest member
Advally Service

Trending content

Back
Top