Quote:

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 27^th, 2024 at 6:24pm:


I see. Do you mean like how Mr Trump avoided paying any tax for over a decade because of his losses in the 1990s?

I think you do. That's exactly what you mean because that's how the tax system works.

But I'm curious. The big fella's running again this year. When do you think he'll release his tax returns, Baron?

Mortdooley wrote on Sep 27^th, 2024 at 8:18pm:


I know nothing about your tax system, Mort, but do you know?

Even I know taxing home owners is fabricated deranged hysteria. Why?

Because a house is not capital, you silly old thing. You don't get taxed on things you don't buy or sell.

Good idea about spending less than you take in though. Your DL's promised to continue spending, lower taxes and take in more revenue. How?

It's comp-licated, he says. Still, he says he's going to pay off the entire US deficit by 2028.

Imagine, even you, with your taxing home owners ruse, know that one's bullshit. And yet, you'll forgive and forget.

2028 will come along, you'll be up to your neck in debt, and you won't say a thing. You'll make excuse after excuse. How do we know?

He said exactly the same thing in 2016. By 2019, he spent more of your money than any other prez in your history - long before covid.

So please spare the Biden hysteria, Mort. If you were sincere about low-spending governments, you wouldn't be supporting the guy who's wasted more of your money than any prez ever.

Mortdooley wrote on Sep 27^th, 2024 at 9:07pm:


Oh? You mean the government hasn't taxed your home as a profit-generating business asset? How strange.

No, by debt I mean your valuable government coffers which you keep saying the leftards are frittering away, drowning your country in debt.

The thing is, you just don't give a hoot if your DL puts you in more debt.

You know this. Your DL could default, lower the US' credit rating, send you into recession, blow the bank.

You wouldn't bat an eye, Mort. You'd have nothing but praise.

The idea that lowering tax revenue raises more money was thoroughly debunked during the Bush administration. It took Obama to get you out of that mess, and it took Biden to get you out of covid.

These are cold, hard facts which you probably know already.

Mortdooley wrote on Sep 27^th, 2024 at 9:57pm:


Mort, if Memo's living in her little house, and going to her little Bible study and everything, she doesn't have to pay a cent.

Never has, never will.

You know this, why are you pretending?

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 27^th, 2024 at 6:17pm:
[/quote]


Seems to me that the fairest outcome would be that since the top 5% earn 90% of the total income, they should pay about 90% of the total tax take.

the reality is that if you give more money to the people at the bottom, they will buy more drugs and tattoos and mag wheeels and KFC and you (as a country) will get no benefit .

if you allow an entrepreneur (like musk) to hang onto that money, he will build a business and create jobs and help the balance of trade figures and you will get a lot of benefit




say i have a super fast racehorse that earns my farm a heap of cash

should i give every horse the same feed, the same veterinary care, the same attention?

if i do that super fast horse will contribute much less and i will have less money to buy feed for all the slow horses and old horses and sick horses.

far better to pour your energy into elevating the best and then we call benefit

as my recent thread established  "rich people are just better people"

poor people , especially the third or fourth generation poor are generally assholes and selfish pricks.

i would support giving resources to new migrants as they can be very ambiotious and have untapped potential

but if you are 3rd or 4 th generational welfare takers, giving you more is rediculous.

much better to give it to new aspirational migrants (especially the chinese and the indians) or leave it with the established stars