The Establishments war on Donald Trump
See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles
Title: Club for Growth Action to Trump: You Sue Us, We'll Sue You Back
Source:
National Review
URL Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/corne ... well-sue-you-back-jim-geraghty
Published: Sep 26, 2015
Author: Jim Geraghty
Post Date: 2015-09-26 08:54:45 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 16018
Comments: 92
Attorneys for Club for Growth Action, a political arm of the Club for Growth, sent a letter to the Trump Organization’s General Counsel Thursday threatening a counter-suit if Trump sues their organization. “If Mr. Trump brought suit on the baseless grounds stated in your letter, Club Action would not hesitate to seek sanctions for abusive litigation under Federal Rule 11 or equivalent rules and, depending upon the forum, under statutes that deter Strategic Litigation against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP statutes),” the letter states. “Stripped of its purple adjectives, your letter makes two complaints against Club Action. Both complaints are untrue, and neither comes close to the type of knowing and malicious falsehood the First Amendment requires a public figure such as Mr. Trump to establish.” At the heart of the issue is the Club for Growth Action ad stating that Trump “supports higher taxes.” Trump’s lawyers say he no longer holds the position the ad refers to, and will soon be unveiling a plan to lower taxes. (Trump has said, however, he intends to target the “hedge fund guys” who he feels aren’t paying their fair share.) Perhaps the more interesting contention from the Club is this: You accuse the Club for Growth of trying to “extort” a million dollars from Mr. Trump in return for its political support. Nonsense. Club Action reports it was Mr. Trump who, last spring, asked to meet with the Club. During the meeting requestsed by Mr. Trump, as reflected in the attached letter to Mr. Trump, the Club’s Mr. [David] McIntosh made clear that the Club and Mr. Trump had important areas of policy disagreement. However, some areas of policy agreement also were identified. Mr. Trump asked how he could support the Club and, upon being informed that a donation would be appreciated, invited Mr. McIntosh to send a follow-up letter through Mr. Lewandowski, who also attended.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: TooConservative (#0)
What is the Club for Growth?
... one million dollars could make all that go away:
A conservative shakedown organization like Jesse Jackson's Operation Push. Make a donation and we won't say anything bad.
Wow. Only one million dollars? What a racket.
You're right. One million dollars is chump change for Trump. Hell, demanding only one million dollars from a guy like Trump, well, that hardly qualifies as a "shakedown", right? And running negative ads after being told by Trump to go piss up a rope, well, they would have run those ads even if they got the paltry one million dollars. You believe that, right? I mean, that's what "conservative" organizations do, isn't it? Take down conservatives?
The answer to all of this is not to engage these people directly. Ignore them. Use your own money to get elected. And then, when in power, press a directly populist message that the wealthy will pay the same percentage of their total wealth, from all sources including current income, that the middle middle class and working class do - the people who are above the level of the earned income tax credit, but below the level of the Social Security cutout. Make sure that the wealthy pay the identical taxes on capital gains, including unrealized capital gains, that the middle middle class does. The middle middle class earns wages, and all of them are taxed by social security, medicare and income tax. Therefore, ALL sources of income will be taxed by those same three taxes: capital gains and dividends also, and ALL at the same rate. And unrealized capital gain? That is also taxed to the middle class as well, in the form of property tax on homes (about 1.4% average). So, the middle middle class holds its wealth in homes, and pay 1.4% every year on that wealth. And the super rich hold their wealth as securities, and they shall be taxed at 1.4% of the value of their wealth too, every year, just like the middle middle class are. The second source of middle middle class wealth is automobiles, and they pay a sales tax when they buy them. Let the wealthy pay the same sales tax on the purchase of securities as well. Simply target the different methods by which the rich hold and exchange wealth with the identical taxes, at the same rates, the the middle class pay. That will redistribute about 30% of the wealth of the rich, just as it does the middle class. It is just. It will be popular with everybody but the rich (and they deserve no special breaks or favors), it will make the rich no different from everybody else, strip them of their secret privileges, and force them to compete in just exactly the same ways. And as their wealth concentrations ebb, their power will ebb also. Focus on the middle and working class, and propose tax reform that doesn't make the rich pay MORE taxes, but simply makes the rich pay the same LEVEL of taxes, on all their wealth, that the middle class pay. Do not allow the rich to make special categories of wealth that don't get hit by taxes. Stocks are not different than houses and cars. They're just wealth. But we TAX middle class wealth, every year. Not the wealth of the rich. There is a nice "right across the plate" pitch here that is so obviously just and fair that the only people who will scream are the rich who want to keep their privileges and shift the burden of government to the middle class, as they have done. Spread the burden evenly, and the rich will be brought in line. And then name and shame and nail every special interest group that lobbies for its own tax breaks. No tax breaks, for anybody. Starting at the top, because moves at the top generate greater revenue. Set the tax burden at the level needed to pay the government without a deficit, and as the debt is gradually retired over time, use the excess to pay it faster. Stop the accounting legerdemain. Fair, even and straightforward. No? Then refuse to compromise, let everything shut down, and let it all go to pieces. By doing so, Andrew Johnson turned what would have been the complete rape of the American South into a merely oppressive, tiresome and ultimately ineffective burden of occupation and annoyance. Sometimes you have to know when to draw the line and not budge, and accept that its better to let everything go to pieces than to let the bad guys win. If the choice is to thrown your own child out of the lifeboat to drown, so that the rest in the boat have a better chance of making it, you say that no, we will ALL risk drowning together, and maybe we will all drown together, but we're not throwing my child overboard. Because your lives are no more valuable than his, and it is better that we all die and go to God clean, than they we be murderers, live a few more years, and then all be thrown into hell. And then, when somebody disagrees, you throw HIM out of the boat, and your problem is solved, and he deserves it. That's how you fight.
Weren't those securities purchased with after-tax income? Meaning you want to tax them again. And tax the same security every year. But only 1.4%, right? That percentage won't go up, will it? I don't see anything in your post about cutting spending. Why is that? Are we already spending as little as possible and the only solution is to send Washington more money?
Trump told them he wanted to support the Club. So they sent a fundraising request to his campaign manager. I've never known the Club to compromise, no matter who the donor is. Notice they specifically pointed out that they disagree with Trump on some political matters up front. Trump knew that they weren't going to ever endorse him if he didn't embrace the Club's strict agenda. Just as a general matter, the Club is quite consistent in applying its standards to both donors and to pols that it donates to. The pols, in particular, have to toe the line on the Club's agenda. Sounds like Trump wanted their endorsement and thought he could just buy them off since that is typical with many of these groups. The Club is tougher than that. If Trump just wants to write a check and get an endorsement, the Heritage Action group would be a better bet for him. But the Club's endorsement carries a lot more weight which is why Trump was interested to begin with. And Trump at least knows that a lot of us can be swayed to a candidate if they can secure the Club's support.
Another of your shameless lies. I doubt you know the Club or its history at all. Don't you have a cop to blow?
But Trump gives no indications he is going to cough up that moldy money he's got. His annual cash flow apparently is on the order of $400M. Assuming he'll blow off $100M on immediate expenses for the extended family and such, he'd have $300M in cash. After that, he has to start selling off golf courses and resorts and casinos and hotels. Or borrow money (at a favorable interest rate). You imagine Trump pulling out a big wallet with $1 billion of his own money to run. I would almost bet my own cash money that that will never happen. Recall Perot, another tycoon self-funder. And how much did he spend? AFAIK, even in his first run (when he had to cover the costs of getting the Reform party on all the state ballots), he spent under $60 million. And I'm not sure Trump will even spend $100M. Just think how much Trump has enhanced his name brand all over the world in the last few months. He could quit now, having spent nothing and gotten hundreds of millions of dollars worth of free publicity for his name brand. And Trump, in recent years, is all about putting his brand name (not his own money) into big projects. I know I'm crushing your sweet dreams of the Republican tycoon you can finally love with all your heart and soul but there it is. : )
As a reccomendation, don't pick on "misterwhite"; he is an innocent victim of government love. He is reaching out for HELP!, however.
F**k the Club and f**k it's history. They tried to shakedown Trump and it didn't work. They're no different than Jesse and Al. What, I'm supposed to ignore that shameless bribery attempt because it's a "conservative" organization and it means well? The end justifies the means? Go vote for Hillary. At least she agrees with you. "Don't you have a cop to blow?" Watch your mouth, asshole.
Crush with what? Your own dreams? Yeah. That'll work.
So if Trump You're stupid if you believe that.
You're making stuff up.
No, they would have thanked him and highlighted areas where Trump agrees with them. I've never seen them adopt any donor's position. The donors adopt the Club's positions. And any pol that gets Club money has to toe the line, in particular on the annual roll call votes that they have held for the last decade or so. These are the ones where they try to defund pork for various congresscritters. It is a major reason why the Beltway GOP doesn't like them. Well, that and running candidates in primaries against their RINO incumbents (like Cochrane in Mississippi in 2014).
The club you worship is the enemy of Americans. They are part of the establishement that you are. You're establishement needs to be puked out of America.
You're naive if you don't understand that some of these "conservative" groups do sell endorsements. And you're naive if you don't understand that that is exactly what Trump was trying to do. He no doubt will buy a few of these endorsements. However, the Club has its reputation and loyal backers because they aren't for sale. The only other group that is notable for not being for sale is the National Taxpayers Union bunch (though they aren't as strong as they once were, the Club having taken some of their donors away from them).
They are for sale. They are already bought and paid for. They are whores. They are also damaged goods and those who associate with them are writing their own political funeral.
As I said. They would NOT have run the negative ads had Trump "contributed". A shakedown by any other name.
Actually, they are not for sale. But they assume that pols are so they do buy the pols. And they are quite good at making sure their pols stay bought. The Club intends to buy the pols (mostly in low-cost districts) to enact its pro-business/pro-jobs/anti-regulation agenda. And also to make the rest of them afraid of getting primaried by Club-backed opponents. In some respects, the Club was the model for the Tea Party groups. Like NRA, the Club will consider endorsing Dems as well as GOPs. Of course, Dems are allergic to the Club so they rarely have any applicants but it isn't because the Club isn't willing if a Dem will support their agenda.
Of course they were. And so were the houses of the middle class - which is the primary capital resource in which THEY hold their wealth. Cars are next, and those are taxed on sale and annual registration as well. So, the two primary places middle class wealth is spent, and the primary capital asset they have that grows, is also paid for by after-tax money, and taxed on sale, and taxed again every year. Of course YOU are always going to support a special tax regime for the super-rich, even though you are not one of them, and YOU have to pay tax on YOUR primary capital asset year after year after year. You're one of those duped rube upper middle class folks I've talked about, who vote for Republicans so they can favor the people far above you, and screw you. But you have a (small, compared to them) stock portfolio that you don't want to see taxed. The 1.4% is what people pay right now, on average, for their house and land every year in property tax. That's why securites should be taxed at that rate. As far as cutting spending, in THIS post? No. But if you've read my posts over the years, you see that I have spending cuts all over the place, starting with bringing the military home from imperial adventures, slashing everything but the strategic nuclear forces by 75% and stationing the remainder on the Mexican border to stop the flow. Also, you've seen me advocating ending non-emergency relief foreign aid. You'll have seen me advocate for the states and feds to drill for the oil and frack it on state and federal land, and put all of the profit from oil exploitation on public land directly into the treasury, reducing the need to tax people. Leave taxes where they are, augment it with direct extraction revenues, use the surging surplus to pay off the national debt, and then systematically ratchet down taxes overall so that we run no surplus and have no debt. There's plenty we can do to cut expenditures. Single payer health insurance will make per capita insurance costs to the government a lot lower than the current crazy-quilt, which is designed to inflate profits for the insurance company middlemen. Of course YOU are never going to hear any of this. Others might, though.
The Teachers Unions are not for sale either. They are hard-core partisan and could not be bought if you wanted to.
They are none of that. They are pro establishement crony capitalists amnesty loving pieces of shit. If they were pro business. They wouldn't be going against Trump. Trump is pro business they are not. The are not pro jobs. If they were they would be for eliminating trade deals that destroy American jobs and infrastructure. They aren't anit regulation. They like us being regulated under NAFTA, GATT and other bullshit "laws". They could all go suck Obama and get aids and die and we would be better off.
Well, I was trying to find something to like that had an "R" behind its name., but I can see myself from the partisan Republicans on this board that they'll never accept Trump. So I'm building Biden or Hillary into my models for the future now, because the only guy with a prayer of beating the Democrats is Trump, and it's obvious to me, just from this board and talking to other Republicans at work (in the NYC finance world) that Trump is not their guy. Some of them voted for Obama (the first time) because Palin was off the reservation of acceptable to them. They're not going to vote outside of their bandwidth. They are the "GOPe". I can vote with the GOP on a Trump, but they and you are all telling me that it won't be him, that you'll never accept him, and I'm beginning to be pretty sure that is true. It's like :Palin. I loved her. The degree of hatred others showed for her, and still do when I mention her, moves them into a certain cadre in my mind. The Republican right is dominated by that sort, and I think of them about the same that they think of Sarah and Trump. So I was hoping I'd have somebody to support, but you Republicans look destined to knock out Trump. I won't vote for him, but I'd rather see Hillary win than let you guys win. Whoever wins the next election puts two butts on the Supreme Court. I'd rather Hillary do that than Runio or Jeb or Fiorina. So now it's just watching a baseball game between two teams I don't care about, but one team I really hate. The Republicans vis-a-vis Trump are like that team that hired Tebow but refused to play him: jackasses that I want to see lose.
Why don't you do that? Why would anyone do that and give the profits they earned to the treasury. No one is that stupid. Sharing the profits would be better.
I don't hang out with the super elite like you do. Unless I'm doing a job for them. I can assure you that there are more regular folk then upper class snobs who vote for Obama. Almost everyone I talk to loves Trump and will vote for him. I'm just a regular dude. So I know what regular dudes think like. Also I know some regular gals who like him too. A couple who voted for the child murderer Obama.
Oil under federal and state land belongs to the people. It does not belong to private interests. A federal and state oil companies, to drill on federal and state land, need not have investors that want a huge return, and need not have highly-paid executives. Roughnecks cost what they cost, but federal and state executives are civil servants that get paid pennies compered to private oil company execs. So, you set up a federal oil company to explore and drill all of the oil on federal land. The cost of doing that is the same, but the profiits don't get handed over to the executives or the shareholders., they go right into the Treasury, where they reduce the need for taxes. Let private interests drill, and they only pay royalties for use of public land. Those royalties are but a tiny fraction of the profits. Most of the profits go to execs and shareholders. If civil servants are the execs, the profits stay in the company, and if the people are shareholders, through the Treasury, massive cash flows flow to the people directly from public assets under public lands exploited by the public, without any profit-skimming private middlemen. Cut out the middlemen, put public profit from public oil in the public treasury, and the need for tax revenues from the public will diminish proportionally, dollar for dollar, leaving more money in private hands for private activity.
Then you can have to post office and the office of management and budget go get the oil. The land is actually Gods not the governments.
Hey Mr Roosevelt butt kisser. Why not just have the government do everything like the USSR. Then we can all get our rationed "fair share". Where is the aurhorization in the constitution for the government to do this? Oh there isn't any but you're lawless so who cares right.
Yep. They even published a price list.
Well, to be clear, I think Trump is great, and I'll vote for him. I thought Sarah was great, and I voted for HER, not McCain - he was just at the top of the ticket. I vomited in my mouth when I voted for Romney, and that is the last time I'm going to pull the R lever unless I SUPPORT the person I'm voting for. The last three Republicans I actually SUPPORTED were: Palin, W on his RE-ELECTION (hated him in his first election), and Dole. I'll support Trump if your Republican buddies let him get the nomination, but they're not going to. I will not vote for any of the other Republican candidates EXCEPT for Carson, or Cruz, or Huckabee, but none of them will be the nominee. Trump's the only one who could be. And I see just how evil Republicans are - they'll stop at NOTHING in order to stop him. And when they do, I would rather have Hillary Clinton than Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. The difference between this time and other times is that ever since 1969 the Republicans have controlled the Supreme Court, so no matter what they always had the final say. But the next President will put two Justices on that court: Ginsburg's replacement, and Kennedy's. If Trump isn't the nominee, Biden or Hillary will put the next two justices on the court, and that will mean that the Court moves rapidly, with its full power, to sweep aside the political resistance to the full Democrat agenda. The winner this time wins it all. Which means its Trump or bust. And then the question - if it's not Trump - is what the bust looks like. Is it a Republican bust, where everybody gets screwed but the super rich escape? Or is it a Democrat bust, where everybody gets screwed and the rich get gutted and strung up. If I'm going to go down, I want to be sure that the rich go down with me. So, in a bust scenario, in a Revolution, I'm definitely on the side of the Reds against the Whites. If it's Hitler v. Stalin, I'm with Stalin, because Stalin will always win - he has bigger armies - and in a Game of Thrones, I'm interested in living through the end of the game. The Right wing always loses popular revolutions. We don't have to have one at all, but we will if the Republicans keep winning with their economic agenda. It is France 1770 all over again. The pieces on the table are all the same, and they're being moved in the same tired, stupid old ways. A Trump can forestall that. A Lafayette - an aristocrat who GETS IT that the nobility can only rule the people if it doesn't IMPOVERISH the people. People will follow wealthy leaders, but they will kill them instead if the wealthy become SO greedy that they take away more and more of what the common people have. The wealthy have to keep on reasonably redistributing what they have amassed, as poverty relief and encouragement of the guilds, and as entertainment. If instead they compete with each other to try to run the table, the middle class and civil servants and workers become poor, the poor become destitute, and eventually they all march on Versailles and cut off the heads of the rich and take all of their shit. Then the rich are dead, or in America (or Chile or Russia). We have seen this game play out across three centuries. The American rich are just the current bone-headed aristocracy headed for the guillotine, UNLESS a Lafayette can garner the support of the people and clip the wings of the rich ENOUGH to keep it all going along well. You can concentrate 50% of the wealth in the top 10%, because that leaves enough for the rest to live decently, if frugally. But when you start concentrating 85%, as we have, going to 90%, in 5% of the hands, well, those FEMA camps and coffins are likely to end up housing and burying Rockefellers, not Smiths and Lopez', when all is said and done. The rich need a Trump to raise their taxes more than they imagine. But they don't imagine. So, I'm still hoping he wins, but I just don't think that the Republican crapweasels are going to let it happen.
Yes, and our houses are God's also, and not the government's. But if I don't pay my taxes, the government will act as though it's its, and take it. And currently the government claims the land and God isn't drilling wells, so as far as earthly powers go, federal land and the oil beneath it, all God's, are under the dominion of the temporal human owner, which is the federal government. We are the federal government. So, we should drill our oil, put the profit into the treasury, and reduce our taxes accordingly.
The Post Office will always operate at a loss because it has to deliver to private citizens in rural areas, and that can't be done profitably. It's like rural roads - necessary, costly, a permanent drain. But not such a crushing burden that we should stop doing it.
Like a commie you want to get rid of the rich. If there are no rich who can oppose the government?
Similarly, the rich pay property taxes on their homes. Along with taxes on their cars, boats and planes. They also pay a higher income tax rate, inheritance taxes, and capital gains taxes -- unlike most in the middle class. The top 10% of taxpayers pay over 70% of the nation's income taxes, and are paying a larger share each year. The bottom 50% don't pay shit. They're freeloaders. Before we hit "the rich" to pay more, how about a little something from the lower 50% so they have some skin in the game?
In the USSR, the government took that which was private and operated it, after shooting the owners. Here, Federal land is already Federal, so there's no taking. It's using what is already ours. The Constitution? Necessary and proper. Appropriation of money. It's no different than the selling off of land in 1800s for farms.
WHAT??? The Democrats bought their vote long ago.
Then I predict we'll have the biggest write-in campaign in this nation's history.
We're talking a post-Obama (apocalyptic) period So this is the USA that the "winner" will win: "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD . . . " ~Psalm 33:12a
I am not interested in "getting rid of the rich". There will always be rich and poor, because men have different talents. I am interested in rooting out every law that is favorable to the rich, every tax loophole, to make them pay the same rates, with only the same deductions, as everybody else. That the middle class wealth, in houses, is taxed every year, but upper class wealth, in securities, is not, is why the middle class cannot accumulated wealth, while the already-rich do quite easiily. The middle class have 30% of their gain in wealth taken in taxes. The rich have very little taken, only the liquid portion they take as wages. It's systematic robbery, with the rich having the benefit of government, but having corruptly shifted the burden of paying for the government, and bleeding for it, over to the middle class and poor. And the accumulation of wealth in fewer and fewer hands has become so rapid, and so brazen, that the ability to maintain the political fist to do it is diminishing. Trump gets it. He's a rich guy who understands the need to tax the rich more and to take away their loopholes. Middle class people do not get it, because they don't understand how rigged the system is (because they are not exposed to it). They merely feel the effects of being beggared, without understanding why it is happening. It's why only a Trump can actually lead such a reform. But the party of the rich - the Republicans - well and truly hate him, because he's going to break their rice bowl. He's certainly not going to take all they have, nor do I advocate that. He's going to take what needs to be taken to make the system fairer, to adjust it, to make it viable. The other alternative is the Democrats. They will nationalize a lot more wealth, and be more socialistic in their approach, though this will be masked by taking the wealth and markets of SOME rich and handing it over to OTHER rich, who are their cronies. The Democrat approach will harness up the grievances of the poor and whip it up, but instead of aiming for fairness and reason, like a Trump would, they will whip people into a fury on racial lines, and get a mob that will let them do more than is fair or prudent. You seem to be resisting doing what is fair and prudent. The endpojnt of what you think you advocate will be a revolution that will kill the rich. I don't like revolutions. They are destructive. People must be reasonable,. Part of being reasonable with food is to eat enough to be satisfied, then stop. And if that amount makes you fat, eat as much as you NEED, then stop. Being reasonable with money means accumulating enough to be well off, comfortable and control your enterprise. Then stop. If you're so greedy for more that you're putting your own countrymen out of work by the millions, and seeking to take away their retirement benefits and leave them without health care, you are fitting your own neck for a noose. That's stupid. Trump is the sort of guy who can walk the right path. He's talking about these things. The Democrats will be more brutal and less fair, but will avoid a revolution. Let the Republicans continue on their path, and things will end in fire and blood in our lifetimes. We don't need to repeat history, if we're smart. If we refuse to be smart, well, the Red side wins almost all of the Revolutions, in the end. Because demographics is destiny. The best answer is to reasonably redistribute wealth on an ongoing basis, so that it never comes to that.
No. The Democrats gave them what they want, and got their permanent support. That's not sending them checks. It's giving them the legislation they want. That's the whole POINT of a lobby: to get the legislation you want. Maybe we can just say that Democrats understand government better than Republicans do.
The top 2 percent pay what percent?
Or we could just say you understand democrats better because they relate to your values better.
You people always ignore the other taxes the bottom 50%: social security, medicare, sales - on every penny. They all pay. You always limit your analysis to the income tax. But your numbers are dwindling. The Republicans have decimated the middle class so badly, that there are fewer and fewer people willing to buy your sort of bullshit half truths anymore. Trump gets it. That's why HE is ready to hit the financial class with taxes that are fair. But folks like you - you'll never get it. AND you'll block Trump. And so this time you'll get Biden or Hillary, and a Democrat Supreme Court, and then instead of the reasonable and fair sort of tax distribution that people like I am talking about - BECAUSE YOU PEOPLE will not be honest about taxes, you're going to GET Democrats, who are not honest about taxes either - and THEY will rape you in a way that people who are fair, like me, and Trump, never ever would. You lie about taxes by telling half truths. Income taxes are only about a third of all revenues. The other two thirds of revenues come from taxes that hit everybody, and the bottom 75% pay most of those, because they hit the rich little. The age of special treatment of the rich, places to hide THEIR money from taxes, are going the way of the Dodo bird. The only question is whether they will be taxed EQUITABLY, which I advocate, or whether they will be taxed by socialist revolutionaries and raped, which is what your enemies advocate. You've gotten YOUR way since Reagan. It doesn't work, and the middle class and working class have been so hollowed out that the numbers no longer exist to sustain your power. You will have to give up some of your excessive gains, some of the things that grossly and unfairly favor the rich. The country is not going to tolerate the unfairness any more, and nobody is going to listen to the lies you guys tell any more either. The rich pay 70% of 40% of the taxes. Big dead. Everybody else pays the biggest portion of 60% of the taxes. Nobody cares if you "fact check" me and "prove" that it's "only 37%". You do not have the votes. You cannot keep power. You cannot sustain the lie. You are going to be defeated. The question is: how bad. You go along with Trump, and me, and you will simply be treated FAIRLY - you''ll pay more taxes, because you deserve to. You will lose the special exemptions, but you precious rich will still be top dogs. But if you are stupid - and believe me, you Republicans ARE very stupid - as stupid as the French nobility were, or the Russian, or the rich landlords of pre-Revolutionary Mexico - you will try to brazen out your lies, to sustain your position, even though you no longer have the votes. So you'll defeat the moderates like Trump and me, and you'll get your plutocrat- lovers. And then you will have Hillary and the Democrats, who really DO hate you (I don't, Trump doesn't), and THEY will be a lot worse than simply make you play fair. THEY lie like you guys do, but in the other direction. So instead of getting to "fair", which is all I want, they'll get to "raping you", which is what they want. I'm not interested in trying to go through a full exposition of the tax code to you Republicans anymore. You don't CARE, you never did. You're hellbent on preserving your lies. But your's done. You're finished. It's like the slavery party in 1865, with the South defeated, trying to argue with Lincoln for the protection of property (slavery) blah, blah. They were finished. They were not going to sustain that anymore. They lost. The only question was whether they would lose their LIVES. Here., the question is whether your precious rich will pay their fair share (the REAL fair share, not the Republican lies about fairness, which always manipulate the truth), or be raped of assets. If the Democrats win, your rich get raped. If Trump wins, they get to join the ranks of regular taxpayers, and pay over a third of their increase in wealth every year. There is no scenario by which they hold their advantages. The jig is up. All that I am saying is that there are not too many fair-minded people like Trump and me. And that at a certain point the abuse of the fairminded becomes too much. If you force us to choose between Hitler (you) and Stalin (the socialistic Dems), we will choose Stalin. In 1936 America had that choice: Hitler, Stalin..,or FDR. FDR was a very wise choice. That's the choice you have now. We can return to our American roots and have a reasonable solution that clips the wings of your precious rich but does not destroy them, or you can go for Hitler and get hanged by Stalin. Hitler never wins under any scenario. Never has. Never will. There are not enough rich to actually hold the line. You need more men, and there aren't any more. FDR is extending you an olive branch. He comes in the guise of Trump. Better take that Olive branch, because Stalin is standing in the wings, and he's not going to be kind.
Which will fail, because voting is by machine, and the local political parties control the machine counts. "It doesn't matter how many people vote, only who counts them." - Stalin
I think you missed the EITC. Some who do not pay get an "Earned Income Tax Credit" as a socialistic bonus.
You have quite a few posting here that despise the "rich". Filthy smelly Occupy Movement sympathizers. A drug loving hippie trait.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Yes, some do. And I think you make have missed in my commentary that I referred to the band of people between the cutoff of the EITC and the Social Security cap. THOSE are the people who own cars and houses and who are exposed to the full ravage of the tax code, without having the sort of assets that get the special upper class exceptions. They're also the bulk of the American population. The upper class should LOSE al of their exceptions so that they are taxed exactly the SAME as these people, on all of their income and property - just like the bulk of Americans are. That's how you make it fair: stop pretending that "houses" - which are property bought with after-tax income - are different from securities. The difference is that houses are taxed at 1.4% of their full value, annually, and often have transfer taxes, but securities are only taxed on the capital gain at their sale, and don't pay transfer taxes. HUGE difference, which means that the very rich only pay taxes on most of their assets WHEN THEY CHOOSE, which is never. Because of the other tricks available to those with vast wealth, that the tax code has been designed to accomodate. Republicans, if they were honest, OUGHT to be really interested in knowing these things. BUT THEY'RE NOT. Instead, they grouse in ignorance about things they don't know, and support a tax code that has massively shifted the concentration of national wealth into fewer and fewer hands, in 40 short years. The incuriosity of Republicans about this, and the way that they go on and on about "deserving" it - that wealth concentration wasn't the result of hard work, it was the result of a grossly unfair tax code - is why I call Republicans liars. Because they are. But the jig really is up. Who have the Republicans got left? Well, there's about half of the super-rich. The other half side with Democrats, in part because they expect that when Democrats take plenary power, they'll use the government to put their rivals out of business and take their market share. And there's an ever-dwindling "striver class" that dreams of being super rich one day, but that has no practical means of getting there BECAUSE the game is rigged so severely against them. There USED TO BE national security types, but the Republicans sold them out and didn't treat them in the VA. Fewer and fewer veterans support the party of W Bush. There were the pro-life Christians, but the GOP sold them out with Harriet Miers, the Schiavo fiasco, Mitt Romney, John Roberts, and the current Planned Parenthood funding. The number of pro-life Christians who are gung-ho for the GOP has shrunk by millions now. There were the Border-bots, but the GOP is open-borders now. Only Trump is for building the wall, and he is vilified. Who's left, then? Not enough. The Republicans are now, at best, 28% of the electorate. They are aging and dwindling. The Congress, for now, is GOP, because people wanted Obamacare stopped. But the Republicans funded it and guaranteed its survival - and the Republican Supreme Court has twice saved it constitutionally, so it's here to say. WHY? Because the very rich make a lot of money on forced health insurance - THEY are the shareholders and CEOs of the iinsurance companies! It's a rigged casino, and the Republicans are visibly seen to have rigged it, and to be keeping it rigged. Their electoral base is collapsing. They are finished. They have to change. Trump is the voice of change, because he's rich, and has exploited all aspects of the system, but he thinks it's unfair and is looking to change it. The super-rich do not want that change. The question is whether the rank-and-file Republicans, and Trump crossovers, will be enough to get him the nomination, or whether the rich will succeed in shutting him out. With Trump, we'll have an FDR figure who can draw up a "new deal". Without him, the Republicans have nothing like the votes to win with any of their candidates, so it will the Democrat. And the Democrats' policies will look and feel a lot more like a "Five Year Plan".
I don't despise the rich. But I see the hole into which they've led us. We will either be reasonable and unfuck what they have fucked up, OR we will turn into a socialst country. I'm for unfucking it, but the inability of men like you to see the difference between fixing things and being a "filthy smelly Occupy Movement sympathizer" tells me to plan for President Hillary. You cannot win with such a narrow base and such foolish lack of perception.
Yep. The IRS paid out $16 billion in EITC payments in 2013. IN ERROR. The IRS spent $65 billion on the EITC in FY 2014, of which 27.2% or $18 billion were improper. The IRS spent $133 billion IN ERROR the last 10 years. Damn. Just can't seem to get it right.
Do you really want to understand how the tax code works, and favors them? Or are you simply going to favor them NO MATTER WHAT the truth is? If you can be swayed by what you learn, it is worth the exercise. Otherwise, my telling you how things really are, how the tax system actually works to so massively favor them, will not do anything but make you angrier at me than you already are, and what good will that serve? So, you tell me - do you really want to know the truth about the tax code?
The top 10% pays 70% of all federal income taxes and the bottom 50% pay nothing. Yeah, they're massively favored. Favor them any more and they'll have to file for bankruptcy.
I don't consider Deckard a drug loving hippie. Since he is one you were obviously referring to. Deckard in my view is a good guy. He just wants to be left alone to do whatever he wants. Deckard values freedom and we should respect that. I think that he just has a blind spot in what drugs do to society. He thinks the benefits of letting everyone do whatever they want in relation to drugs is more important then the havoc they wreak across society. He has taken a position of "do whatever you want" as long as it doesnt' harm others. Even though it does harm others indirectly. He has taken that position and is trying to be consistent with a belief system he has decided to adopt.
If you can be swayed by what you learn, it is worth the exercise. Otherwise, my telling you how things really are, how the tax system actually works to so massively favor them, will not do anything but make you angrier at me than you already are, and what good will that serve? So, you tell me - do you really want to know the truth about the tax code? First I'm not angry with you, or others. I just tend to go for the throat when you disagree with me. I'm usually right, so that would mean you are wrong if you disagree with me. I suspect you have a similar belief about yourself. So when I say some nasty stuff to you, that is just me letting off some steam so to speak. Nothing personal. I react to comments on threads and not so much the individual. So I may be harsh on one thread and complimentry on another. Hope that clears that up. Now back to the topic at hand. The rich have advantages in the tax code. Sure I agree with that. The poor also have advantages in the tax code. Like paying zero. Or paying zero and still getting money back. I think the rich should pay more. That they should pay a higher percentage. That is negotiable in my mind. But in principal they should pay the most and a higher percentage. Remember in the Bible when a poor lady put in a tiny bit of money and the rich put in a lot. Jesus I believe said that she put in more money then they did because they contributed out of their abundence and she out what she needed to live. So yes I think the rich should pay a higher share then the poor. I don't agree with so called loopholes that allow them to pay nothing. Lets expand this. I don't agree when cities make special tax rules to entice a business to move to thier town. I've hear it said that corporations don't pay any taxes, that they just pass it on in their costs. So maybe we should have no income tax and only tax corporations since they don't pay any taxes anyway.
I certainly respect the ideal. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
The poor pay plenty of taxes. Everybody pays sales taxes, even the homeless when they buy their Mad Dog 20/20. Sales taxes are not trivial either. Leaving aside the very high taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, which are avoidable expenses, clothes are taxed, as is prepared food of whatever sort (such as cafeteria food, or the gas station sandwich). Gasoline, of course, is taxed. So are telecoms. There are a handful of low population states that have no sales tax, but the LOW sales tax states have an average sales tax of 5.5% (when state AND LOCAL sales taxes are counted: a tax is a tax), and the average of the top-5 highest sales tax states (which are mostly Southern), is over 9%. The average overall US sales tax is in the 6.5% range. If weighted by state populations, it would be higher than that. Everybody pays that. Likewise, everybody with a wage of any kind from an employer pays Social Security tax and Medicare tax on the first dollar, and self-employed people pay double. Social Security and Medicare tax combine to 7.65%, and that is paid on the very first dollar earned. Social Security and Medicare tax is not trivial. It is 34% of Federal revenue. And remember, the rich only pay the Social Security tax on the bottom $106,000 or so of their pay and bonuses, but middle and lower class Americans pay that tax on every penny they earn. There is no tax deduction for any of that. So, the poorest of the poor who have a job at all, pay a combined total of about 14.5% of their first dollar in taxes. Because they are so poor, their combined incomes, and the taxes they pay, barely move the needle when it comes to national aggregate taxes collected, but even the poorest of the poor DO pay substantial taxes. And that's assuming they don't smoke or drink. And let's be clear, sales taxes are not a "trivial" portion of government revenues: 34% of state government revenue comes as sales tax, and these taxes fall quite heavily on the poor, proportionately speaking. This is why I get angry when Republicans use that very deceitful argument that the rich pay "70% of the income taxes". Considering that the rich have 85% of the wealth, the fact that they pay 70% of the income taxes indicates that they UNDERPAY by 15%. But let's not lose sight of the ball here. The poor do tend to do both more, out of depression perhaps, and those taxes are sky high. One may grouse that they should not consume these products, and that may be completely true from a health or life perspective, but the fact is that they pay a lot of money in cigarette and booze taxes. "Sin" taxes amount to 3.8% of ALL revenue collected in America, and they skew very heavily to the low end of the socio-economic spectrum. The poor pay taxes. They pay Social Security and Medicare: 7.65%. They pay sales taxes for clothing, shoes, haircuts and prepared foods of whatever type. Some places tax food generally. It is true that very poor people qualify for an Earned Income Tax Credit - they get a certain amount of money back as a credit. But the income threshold is very low. For a single person, the threshold above which he cannot go is $14,820. Now, remember that he is going to spend $1092.42 of that on Social Security and Medicare Tax. leaving him with $13,727.58. And he's going to spend on average somewhere around 6.5% of his income on sales taxes, so lop off another $963,30. So, the guy at the top of that threshold, just sneaking under the wire to get his EITC, spent $2055.72 on taxes. The standard deduction and personal exemption for federal income tax amounts to $10,300, so this guy IS paying the Federal Income Tax, at a rate of 15%, on $4520 of his income. That's another $675. So now, add that to his Social Security and Sales Taxes, and he's paid $2730.72 of his income on taxes. That's about 18,43% of a very small income. What does he have left to live on? $12,089.30, or about $1007.44 per month. Think of the cost of four things: food, bus tickets, rent and washing clothes. Good thing he doesn't smoke. The median gross rent in the United States is $905 per month. Obviosuly he can't do that. The HUD's "Extremely low income" rent calculation - what somebody in a tenement in Hell pays, is about $294,25 per month. This is the average, it skews quite a bit higher in urban areas (where the poor people live) and quite a bit lower in rural areas. Of course, in rural areas, transport is needed. Oh, and the Earned Income Tax Credit this guy earns? $503 per year maximum. He DOES pay income taxes, even to the Feds. Single guys and women are not being paid to live. They pay taxes. Oh, and EITC doesn't kick in until age 25. The bottom end here is threadbare. When children are involved, the benefits are more generous. Essentially, they make sure that the taxes to the parent/guardian are reimbursed by the amount that it costs to house, clothe and feed a child at a basic level. In 2014, about $55.4 billion was paid out in total EITC, of which $12.6 billion was improperly paid, so the real cost of the actual poverty relief program, which offsets the cost of taxes to people with children (the childless do not have their full tax burdens reimbursed) , is $42.8 billion, which is 1.1% of the budget. God lays aside 10% for the poor in his Law (and Jesus demanded a great deal more than that!), so American Christians have nothing to grouse about at the lower end. Single people are paying taxes, even with the Earned Income Tax Credit. Homeless derelicts who live off of begging and sleep in shelters are paying taxes: for booze and cigarettes. In fact, given the very high rates of taxation on those, derelicts may be paying 20- 30% of their total begging income in excise taxes on those products. The only people really not paying taxes are poor people with many children, but that is because the allowances for up to three children, which are basically enough to eat, house and clothe a child, do exceed the total taxes paid, by a married couple filing jointly with 3 or more kids, earning income down in the levels we are talking about. And even they DO pay taxes, they just get something back. What is the alternative? Let the children. Always remember: God's poverty relief tax was 10%. We spend a tenth of that on this tax relief for the poor. Other poverty relief programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc., spend more than this. But when one considers what a real pittance is spent on poverty relief through the tax code, and one looks at the MASSIVE loopholes for the rich, that allow hundreds of billions of dollars that WOULD be paid by the poor or middle class, were those revenue streams and wealth reservoirs taxed at the top they way they are for everybody downscale, it bothers me when people pretend that poverty relief through tax credits is breaking the budget. It REALLY bothers me when Christians do it. We should know better.
The FED prints $1,5 trillion a year out of thin air and just gives it to the banks at practically zero interest. Federal expenditures are too high, but they're in the $3.77 trillion per year range. So instead have the Treasury print the $1.5 trillion directly and spend it, reducing the amount that needs to be taken in taxes to $1,87 trillion. We currently collect about $3.4 trillion, so give money printing back to the Treasury, end the Federal Reserve, print $1.5 billion directly, and cut taxes by 50% across the board, and you'll stimulate the hell out of the economy, and break the hold of the Fed on America's future. But I dream.
But they pay those menial sales taxes with EBT cards. The poor doesn't pay Jack shit.. and most are happy living like a smelly scumbag in an apartment that smells like cigarettes, kerosene and pit bull... because they trade that lifestyle for having everyday off from work. It takes 3 or 4 hard working people to be taxed from all their pay checks to fund just ONE scumbag family. We are running out of the 3 and 4 workers per scumbag. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
It takes 3 or 4 hard working people to be taxed from all their pay checks to fund just ONE scumbag family. We are running out of the 3 and 4 workers per scumbag. The food stamp benefit is about $130 per month. Nobody is living high on the hog for that. "smelly scumbag..scumbag family...scumbag". Christians are not permitted by their God to think this way. Pagans such as yourself are, of course, permitted to judge and hate whomever you please. For awhile.
I'd rather Hillary do that than Runio or Jeb or Fiorina. IOW, your constant protestations aside, you simply do not give a shit about unlimited abortion. Just as I'd come to expect.
LOL.
I do give a shit, but I have come to expect lying, or amnesiac Republicans like you, to keep on pretending that your party, who gave us Roe, and Casey, and Romneycare, and Obamacare, and that funded Planned Parenthood for all these years and again, is pro-life. That way you can keep pretending that the Democrats are worse. But in fact, the Democrats are JUST THE SAME. You Republicans gave us abortion, wrapped it all up nice by the Supreme Court, imposed it, and kept reimposing it, and made it an obligation of taxpayers with your Mitt Romney. You did it. The Democrats just cheerlead and are happy, because they love it. You pretend to hate it, but you don't. You love it. You IMPOSED it. So, I know that there is no difference at all between the parties, and that whichever wins, we're going to have abortion on demand. I know that Republicans, by lying through their teeth, and Christians, by permitting themselves to be dupes following Republicans because they love other unhealthy aspects of the Republican party too much (the un-Christian obsession with Israel, for example), won't break free of the evil and form a NEW party. Therefore, Christian laziness and blindness prevents any organized opposition to the Republcans to emerge. So we're stuck with two pro-abortion parties. Given that, Democrat economics are much more Christian than Republican greed and corruption. So yes, I prefer Democrats over Republicans. Republicans are pro-abortion, pro-war, miilitarily incompetent lovers of mammon. Democrats are pro-abortion, pro-Israel (except for Obama, which is interesting) believers in providing for the poor. Both are evil babykillers. The Democrats are much more economically moral. Democrats are morally better than Republicans on three fronts: Republicans liars, either baldfaced to others or to themselves - refusing to open their eyes, Republicans are very bloodthirsty, loving war and conflict, and Republicans serve mammon. Democrats tell the truth: they're killers of babies and proud of it (which makes them as disgusting as Republicans, but more honest than Republicans, who pretend they're pro-life but impose abortion at every turn), they are less bloodthirsty, and their belief in poverty relief and is far more Christian. I'm still not voting for babykillers. Which means that I won't vote for Republicans or Democrats. Democrats are more moral people, though. Republicans are morally lost on every vector, and they lie to themselves to boot, which makes them incapable of reforming or, really, effectively accomplishing anything good. You can keep trying to peddle your sad pathetic lie that Republicans are pro-life - maybe you even believe it. Open your eyes, man, Wise up. Stop being a dupe. Roe. Casey. Romneycare abortion. Obamacare, Planned Parenthood. O'Connor. Kennedy. Souter. Roberts. Harriet Myers. Terri Schiavo. Republicans are evil. Don't be evil. Get out of that party and shake the dust off the soles of your feet.
Wait, is that TRUMP in that image with the eagle and the flag? And what's that guitar thing he's got in his hand?
2) Christians are not permitted by their God to think this way. Pagans such as yourself are, of course, permitted to judge and hate whomever you please. For awhile. 1) I never said anyone was "living high on the hog". What I said was millions upon millions of generational shitbag welfare rats have become accustomed to living a smelly rat lifestyle in trade for not working. That's the problem. 2) I'll post a few things that is a little hard for the stomach to accept... it helps me identify the sites weak sympathetic libtards. You've been outed. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
But I dream. The problem with just printing a boatload of money is that is causes inflation and makes my savings and all dollars relatively worthless. If retirement incomes are not adjusted for inflation, the retirement income is rendered inadequate. Technically, the bills are printed by the U.S. Government Bureau of Printing and Engraving. But they sure are Federal Reserve Notes and not the old U.S. Gold or Silver Certificates. I agree it should all be returned to the Department of the Treasury. (Off topic, but while we are at it, I would return the USPS to the Department of the Post Office.) I think the arithmetic is off and printing $1.5T would reduce the needed tax from $3.77T to $2.27T. But if that could really work, why not just print $3.77T and eliminate the tax altogether? Print $18T more and pay off the debt. We'd be debt free and tax free. But at the new rate of inflation, it might cost $100 to buy a happy meal.
Wow. At the cost of a few hundred dollars, Trump gets this article, lots of public debate, $1M of free tv attention provided by The Club for Growth of Karl Rove, and he gets to dominate a few more news cycles while low-energy Jeb! continues to be written about mainly on milk cartons.
Probably a minigun. No mag changes, it's belt fed. Exactly so. The rampant inflation of the Obama era has done more to impoverish the elderly. It's an income-leveling effect. So they hand out more food stamps and EITC payments all around, ultimately making the problem worse.
The Club is a longtime enemy of Rove and the Bushes. The Club often funded the challengers of the Bush-backed GOPe candidates. The most famous example was when the Bush machine backed Arlen Specter against Pat Toomey. Years later, Toomey left his job as prez of the Club and took Specter's Senate seat. It took Toomey five years but he did prevail over Specter, Rove and Bush. During these years, Toomey's bitterness did make the Club far more combative toward GOPe incumbents, especially in knocking them out in primaries. I'd think you would at least have some notion of who they are before you make up such weak nonsense about them. They are pretty well-known.
Toomey is and establishment POS!
You really do just make crap up to suit whatever line of argument you are trying to muster.
Oh dear, Karl Rove has American Crossroads, and the Conservative Victory Project. Correction: The argument stands with no dispute on the merits. However, you are invited to try to make an argument on the merits. This Trump fellow is a genius at getting his opposition to pay to give him airtime. Jeb is as absent as Ferris Bueller at attendance.
Toomey had many betrayals for the establishment. Lets start with his expanded background checks idea.
He's getting a lot of free media attention from libmedia because he is such a trainwreck for the GOP. If he became the GOP nominee, that would end immediately and he'd get no coverage he didn't pay for or outside his actual campaign events. Then he'd have to pull out some of those billions he claims to have. Or sell some of his properties so he can run a competitive campaign against Hitlery (who expects to run a $1.5B campaign). I think Trump loves his money and properties a lot more than he wants to be prez.
Toomey is far from ideal, just like Santorum. But he is infinitely better than Snarlin' Arlen. We're talking about Blue Pennsylvania, not Red Texas. We can't expect everything we'd want in a pol from a state like PA.
Which is why I pointed to what the Fed has been doing, in the last year and before. We don't have inflation now, at $1.5 trillion per year. Which means that the Treasury can print that much instead of the Fed, and the rest needed to pay for the gov't can be collected through taxes.
The contrary. I view abortion - and the fact that the people of this country, both parties, will never abolish it, is the reason America is truly evil. and will eventually be destroyed by God. And I think the inability of Christians to walk out of the Republican Party, or to stand together, stand up, and stand fast, is an indication of the degree to which the cancer of apostasy has sunken into American Christianity. So, I view this as a tragedy. And I view your dogged residual loyally for the Republicans, and your simultaneous illogical hatred for the Democrats (given their similarities), is a sad example of the loss of way of Christians I described. You come at me doggedly about this, and I see your blindness to the moral indefensibility of your own position - and it makes me sad.
Both parties are already major train wrecks so why not double down, that will just help get rid of both of them even sooner... Trumps biggest issue is he doesn't know when to engage/disengage his mouth... There's that. Plus he doesn't like cops and is, by far, the biggest anti-cop poster we have on LF. Plus he has no respect for law and order or the rule of law. Plus I think the concept of personal responsibility is totally lost on him. Yeah, other than that ...
Now that's funny.
A lot of Blue State politicians running in the Republican primary for President. I say we go with a non-politician.
Now I'm shocked. ‹/sarcasm›
While the rest of us are contributing over $9,000. "And he's going to spend on average somewhere around 6.5% of his income on sales taxes, so lop off another $963,30." While the rest of us are paying over $7,000. "so this guy IS paying the Federal Income Tax, at a rate of 15%, on $4520 of his income. That's another $675." While "the rich" are paying 39.5% of their income amounting to tens of thousands of dollars. Plus they're being taxed on their investments via capital gains tax and an inheritance (death) tax.
You are contributing 7.65% of your wages, just as he is. It is not unfair that the gross amount of money he gives is less, because he is paying the IDENTICAL percentage that you do. And his eventual payout of SS will be based on what he paid in. What IS unfair is that once people start earning a LOT of money, over $106k or so, then THEY start paying a smaller and smaller percentage, until finally the guy who earns $10 million a year from various sources the same $9000 you do. The cap is what is unfair. That it only hits wages, and not stocks and capital gains is what is unfair. Not the fact that a guy paying the same percentage as you pays less because he earns less. The fact that a guy earning a lot MORE than you pays a vanishingly small percentage while you pay 7.65% on everything THAT is where you should be focusing your eyes - upward, at the rich who have made unfair and uneven deals for themselves. Instead, you are focused firmly downward, full of contempt for the poor. You should stop that. It is not Christian. Contempt for the rich for their cheating IS Christian.
The super-rich, the real ones, are not paying 39.5%. They're paying 20%, or 15%, or 0%. The law has decided that the particular ways THEY get their cash flow is not the same thing as the way that people who have to sell their lives for wages do - and so the hardest earned money, the money requiring WORK, is taxed at a high level SO THAT the rich can be taxed at low or no level on the returns of usury. It's a thoroughly evil system. Of course you'll defend it. That's what you do.
Yeah. They risk it by investing it. They can just as easily lose that money as make a profit. Because they're willing to take a risk, they're taxed at a lower rate. Now you come along and demand they pay 39.5% on that money. Now, what do you think will be the end result? Then you'll be whining, "Where did all the jobs go?"
Given that there is a cap on what you receive from Social Security, it's only fair to have a cap on what you pay in. You want to eliminate both caps, that's fine with me.
I have utter contempt for those who pay ZERO taxes then vote to raise the taxes on those who do to pay for more of their goodies -- free internet, free cellphones, school lunch, school breakfast, school dinner, free this, free that. How about a compromise? How about if you don't pay taxes you can't vote? Before you shout "That's unconstitutional" let's remember that during the time of the Founding Fathers, only freeholders (citizens with property) were allowed to vote.
If he became the GOP nominee, that would end immediately and he'd get no coverage he didn't pay for or outside his actual campaign events. Then he'd have to pull out some of those billions he claims to have. Or sell some of his properties so he can run a competitive campaign against Hitlery (who expects to run a $1.5B campaign). I think Trump loves his money and properties a lot more than he wants to be prez. I was wondering why the GOP was spending to run ads against Trump. They must have a death wish. Nice pivot to the libmedia. Trump does not care who talks about him as long as he is what they are talking about. People can barely remember that Jeb guy or what he is about. He is proving to be competitive with Walker and Perry. If Trump became the GOP nominee. He automatically gets all that party money that is spent on the general election. I guess they could support Biden or Sanders, whichever it will be. Hillary will need the money for her defense counsels. I guess Trump does love his money, almost as much as Hillary loves power. The difference is Trump has his money, and he did not get it by shakedown donations, selling influence.
The calculations may be misleading or inapplicable. EITC Amounts for 2015: The maximum amount of credit for Tax Year 2015 is: $6,242 with three or more qualifying children Qualifying income: Qualifying Children Claimed Single, $14,820, $39,131, $44,454, $47,747 Married Filing Jointly, $20,330, 44,651, $49,974, $53,267 - - - - - The real cost was $55.4 Billion. It should have been not more than $42.8 billion. The fact is that that taxpayers had $55.4 billion removed from their pockets and given away to others. They are not getting a refund for the $12.6 billion and I have not heard of anyone being fired, held responsible, or prosecuted. Does does require a routing number for a direct deposit, or does he make these payments direct by cash or check? That calculation is 6.5% of his gross pay of $14,820. It is charging him sales tax on his withheld Income and Payroll taxes, rather than his take home pay. It also omits consideration of expenditures exempt from a sales tax which include, depending on location, medicines and food, and everything bought in a military exchange or commissary. They pay sales taxes for clothing, shoes, haircuts and prepared foods of whatever type. Some places tax food generally. It is true that very poor people qualify for an Earned Income Tax Credit - they get a certain amount of money back as a credit. But the income threshold is very low. For a single person, the threshold above which he cannot go is $14,820. Now, remember that he is going to spend $1092.42 of that on Social Security and Medicare Tax. leaving him with $13,727.58. And he's going to spend on average somewhere around 6.5% of his income on sales taxes, so lop off another $963,30. So, the guy at the top of that threshold, just sneaking under the wire to get his EITC, spent $2055.72 on taxes. The standard deduction and personal exemption for federal income tax amounts to $10,300, so this guy IS paying the Federal Income Tax, at a rate of 15%, on $4520 of his income. That's another $675. So now, add that to his Social Security and Sales Taxes, and he's paid $2730.72 of his income on taxes. That's about 18,43% of a very small income. What does he have left to live on? $12,089.30, or about $1007.44 per month. To be fair, one might considere the Social Security tax as double, adding what the employer pays. That is not charity by the employer. One may as well view it has what would have been salary paid were it not confiscated by the government. - - - - - The single mom with gets EITC of $3,359 with one qualifying child, $5,548 with two qualifying children, and $6,242 with three or more qualifying children. Your calculations apply only to the single filer with no dependents except him/herself. For day laborers, much income is off the books and not reported to the IRS. Your $1092.42 on Social Security and Medicare is is calculated on GROSS income. $14,820 per year indicates $7.13 per hour if a full-time 40-hour per week job is held at the standard 2,080 hours per hour for calculating. Income and Tax Information https://www.calcxml.com/calculators/federal-income-tax-calculator?skn=#results Single, himself as one dependent Estimated Tax Analysis - - - - - Married, himself as one dependent Estimated Tax Analysis - - - - - Monthly SNAP (food stamp) eligibility, depending on the number of persons in the household: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligibility 1 - $194 Each additional person - $146 A single mom of two children can get $6,132/yr from SNAP. - - - - -
#2. To: TooConservative (#0)
"... the Club’s Mr. [David] McIntosh made clear that the Club and Mr. Trump had important areas of policy disagreement. However ..."
#3. To: BobCeleste (#1)
"What is the Club for Growth?"
#4. To: misterwhite (#2)
#5. To: Fred Mertz (#4)
"Wow. Only one million dollars? What a racket."
#6. To: TooConservative (#0)
#7. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
"And the super rich hold their wealth as securities, and they shall be taxed at 1.4% of the value of their wealth too, every year, just like the middle middle class are."
#8. To: misterwhite (#2)
#9. To: misterwhite (#3)
A conservative shakedown organization like Jesse Jackson's Operation Push. Make a donation and we won't say anything bad.
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
Use your own money to get elected.
#11. To: TooConservative, misterwhite (#9)
#12. To: TooConservative (#9)
"I doubt you know the Club or its history at all."
#13. To: TooConservative (#10)
"I know I'm crushing your sweet dreams of the Republican tycoon
#14. To: TooConservative (#8)
"Trump told them he wanted to support the Club. So they sent a fundraising request to his campaign manager."
paid the bribe "donated" one million dollars, they still would have run those negative ads about him. Because they're "consistent in applying their standards".
#15. To: TooConservative (#8)
If Trump just wants to write a check and get an endorsement,
#16. To: misterwhite (#14)
So if Trump paid the bribe "donated" one million dollars, they still would have run those negative ads about him. Because they're "consistent in applying their standards".
#17. To: TooConservative (#16)
#18. To: A K A Stone (#15)
You're making stuff up.
#19. To: TooConservative (#18)
they aren't for sale.
#20. To: TooConservative (#16)
"No, they would have thanked him and highlighted areas where Trump agrees with them."
#21. To: A K A Stone (#19)
They are for sale. They are already bought and paid for. They are whores.
#22. To: misterwhite (#7)
Weren't those securities purchased with after-tax income? ... Weren't those securities purchased with after-tax income?
#23. To: TooConservative (#18)
The only other group that is notable for not being for sale is the National Taxpayers Union bunch (
#24. To: TooConservative (#21)
pro-business/pro-jobs/anti-regulation agenda.
#25. To: TooConservative (#10)
(Edited)
I know I'm crushing your sweet dreams of the Republican tycoon you can finally love with all your heart and soul but there it is. : )
#26. To: Vicomte13 (#22)
You'll have seen me advocate for the states and feds to drill for the oil and frack it on state and federal land, and put all of the profit from oil exploitation on public land directly into the treasury, reducing the need to tax people.
#27. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
I can vote with the GOP on a Trump, but they and you are all telling me that it won't be him, that you'll never accept him, and I'm beginning to be pretty sure that is true.
#28. To: A K A Stone (#26)
#29. To: Vicomte13 (#28)
Oil under federal and state land belongs to the people. It does not belong to private interests.
#30. To: Vicomte13 (#28)
So, you set up a federal oil company to explore and drill all of the oil on federal land.
#31. To: A K A Stone (#19)
(Edited)
"They are for sale."
#32. To: A K A Stone (#27)
#33. To: A K A Stone (#29)
#34. To: A K A Stone (#29)
Then you can have to post office
#35. To: Vicomte13 (#32)
Which means its Trump or bust. And then the question - if it's not Trump - is what the bust looks like. Is it a Republican bust, where everybody gets screwed but the super rich escape? Or is it a Democrat bust, where everybody gets screwed and the rich get gutted and strung up. If I'm going to go down, I want to be sure that the rich go down with me. So, in a bust scenario, in a Revolution, I'm definitely on the side of the Reds against the Whites.
#36. To: Vicomte13 (#22)
"So, the two primary places middle class wealth is spent"
#37. To: A K A Stone (#30)
#38. To: Vicomte13 (#23)
"The Teachers Unions are not for sale either."
#39. To: Vicomte13 (#32)
"And then the question - if it's not Trump"
#40. To: Vicomte13 (#32)
The winner this time wins it all.
#41. To: Rufus T Firefly (#40)
#42. To: A K A Stone (#35)
#43. To: misterwhite (#38)
The Democrats bought their vote long ago.
#44. To: Vicomte13 (#42)
I am interested in rooting out every law that is favorable to the rich, every tax loophole, to make them pay the same rates, with only the same deductions, as everybody else.
#45. To: Vicomte13 (#43)
Maybe we can just say that Democrats understand government better than Republicans do.
#46. To: misterwhite (#36)
#47. To: misterwhite (#39)
(Edited)
Then I predict we'll have the biggest write-in campaign in this nation's history.
#48. To: misterwhite, Vicomte13 (#36)
The bottom 50% don't pay shit. They're freeloaders.
#49. To: A K A Stone (#35)
#50. To: nolu chan (#48)
#51. To: GrandIsland (#49)
#52. To: nolu chan (#48)
"Some who do not pay get an "Earned Income Tax Credit" as a socialistic bonus."
#53. To: A K A Stone (#44)
(Edited)
The top 2 percent pay what percent?
#54. To: Vicomte13 (#53)
"how the tax system actually works to so massively favor them"
#55. To: GrandIsland, Deckard (#49)
Filthy smelly Occupy Movement sympathizers. A drug loving hippie trait.
#56. To: Vicomte13, tooconservative, tomder55, sneakypete (#53)
Do you really want to understand how the tax code works, and favors them? Or are you simply going to favor them NO MATTER WHAT the truth is?
#57. To: A K A Stone (#55)
Deckard in my view is a good guy. He just wants to be left alone to do whatever he wants. Deckard values freedom and we should respect that.
#58. To: A K A Stone (#56)
The poor also have advantages in the tax code. Like paying zero.
#59. To: A K A Stone (#56)
So maybe we should have no income tax and only tax corporations since they don't pay any taxes anyway.
#60. To: Vicomte13 (#58)
(Edited)
The poor pay plenty of taxes. Everybody pays sales taxes, even the homeless when they buy their Mad Dog 20/20
#61. To: GrandIsland (#60)
But they pay those menial sales taxes with EBT cards. The poor doesn't pay Jack shit.. and most are happy living like a smelly scumbag in an apartment that smells like cigarettes, kerosene and pit bull... because they trade that lifestyle for having everyday off from work.
#62. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter (#25)
Whoever wins the next election puts two butts on the Supreme Court.
#63. To: A K A Stone, tomder55 (#41)
#64. To: TooConservative (#62)
(Edited)
IOW, your constant protestations aside, you simply do not give a shit about unlimited abortion. Just as I'd come to expect.
#65. To: A K A Stone (#41)
#66. To: Vicomte13 (#61)
1) The food stamp benefit is about $130 per month. Nobody is living high on the hog for that.
#67. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#59)
So instead have the Treasury print the $1.5 trillion directly and spend it, reducing the amount that needs to be taken in taxes to $1,87 trillion. We currently collect about $3.4 trillion, so give money printing back to the Treasury, end the Federal Reserve, print $1.5 billion directly, and cut taxes by 50% across the board, and you'll stimulate the hell out of the economy, and break the hold of the Fed on America's future.
So instead have the Treasury print the $1.5 trillion directly and spend it, reducing the amount that needs to be taken in taxes to $1,87 trillion.
#68. To: TooConservative (#0)
Attorneys for Club for Growth Action, a political arm of the Club for Growth, sent a letter to the Trump Organization’s General Counsel Thursday threatening a counter-suit if Trump sues their organization.
#69. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#65)
what's that guitar thing he's got in his hand?
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#70. To: nolu chan (#67)
The problem with just printing a boatload of money is that is causes inflation and makes my savings and all dollars relatively worthless. If retirement incomes are not adjusted for inflation, the retirement income is rendered inadequate.
#71. To: nolu chan (#68)
$1M of free tv attention provided by The Club for Growth of Karl Rove
#72. To: TooConservative (#71)
#73. To: A K A Stone (#72)
#74. To: TooConservative (#71)
The Club is a longtime enemy of Rove and the Bushes.
At the cost of a few hundred dollars, Trump gets this article, lots of public debate, $1M of free tv attention provided by The Club for Growth, and he gets to dominate a few more news cycles while low-energy Jeb! continues to be written about mainly on milk cartons.
#75. To: TooConservative (#73)
#76. To: nolu chan (#74)
This Trump fellow is a genius at getting his opposition to pay to give him airtime. Jeb is as absent as Ferris Bueller at attendance.
#77. To: A K A Stone (#75)
Toomey had many betrayals for the establishment. Lets start with his expanded background checks idea.
#78. To: nolu chan (#67)
The problem with just printing a boatload of money is that is causes inflation and makes my savings and all dollars relatively worthless.
#79. To: TooConservative (#62)
IOW, your constant protestations aside, you simply do not give a shit about unlimited abortion. Just as I'd come to expect.
#80. To: TooConservative (#76)
(Edited)
trainwreck for the GOP.
#81. To: A K A Stone (#55)
"I think that he just has a blind spot in what drugs do to society."
#82. To: nolu chan (#68)
"while low-energy Jeb! continues to be written about mainly on milk cartons."
#83. To: TooConservative (#77)
"We can't expect everything we'd want in a pol from a state like PA."
#84. To: misterwhite (#83)
I say we go with a non-politician.
#85. To: Vicomte13 (#58)
"Now, remember that he is going to spend $1092.42 of that on Social Security and Medicare Tax."
#86. To: misterwhite (#85)
While the rest of us are contributing over $9,000.
#87. To: misterwhite (#85)
While "the rich" are paying 39.5% of their income amounting to tens of thousands of dollars. Plus they're being taxed on their investments via capital gains tax and an inheritance (death) tax.
#88. To: Vicomte13 (#87)
"The law has decided that the particular ways THEY get their cash flow ..."
#89. To: Vicomte13 (#86)
"The cap is what is unfair."
#90. To: Vicomte13 (#86)
"Instead, you are focused firmly downward, full of contempt for the poor."
#91. To: TooConservative (#76)
He's getting a lot of free media attention from libmedia because he is such a trainwreck for the GOP.
#92. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#58)
Maximum Credit Amounts
$5,548 with two qualifying children
$3,359 with one qualifying child
$503 with no qualifying children
Zero, One, Two,Three or more
Head of Household or Widowed, $14,820, $39,131, $44,454, $47,747 In 2014, about $55.4 billion was paid out in total EITC, of which $12.6 billion was improperly paid, so the real cost of the actual poverty relief program, which offsets the cost of taxes to people with children (the childless do not have their full tax burdens reimbursed) , is $42.8 billion, which is 1.1% of the budget.
God lays aside 10% for the poor in his Law (and Jesus demanded a great deal more than that!), so American Christians have nothing to grouse about at the lower end.
And he's going to spend on average somewhere around 6.5% of his income on sales taxes, so lop off another $963.30
The poor pay taxes.
So, the guy at the top of that threshold, just sneaking under the wire to get his EITC, spent $2055.72 on taxes.
Tax filing status: Single
Gross annual income ($14,820)
Amount of gross income considered 'unearned'/investment income ($0)
Qualified plan/IRA contribution ($0)
Itemized deductions - $0 for standard ($0)
Number of personal exemptions (1)
Number of dependent children (0 to 15)
Gross income - $14,820
Qualified plan contributions - $0
Adjusted gross income = $14,820
Standard/Itemized deductions - $6,300
Personal exemptions - $4,000
Taxable income = $4,520
Tax liability before credits - $452
Child tax credits - $0
Estimated tax liability = $452
Gross income - $14,820
Qualified plan contributions - $0
Adjusted gross income = $14,820
Standard/Itemized deductions - $12,600
Personal exemptions - $4,000
Taxable income = $0
Tax liability before credits - $0
Child tax credits - $0
Estimated tax liability = $0
2 - $357
3 - $511
4 - $649
5 - $771
6 - $925
7 - $1,022
8 - $1,169
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]