That makes him the Anti-Christ! Explains a lot!
No he is not. I know who these witches are who Cook that story up as they together with their doll twinflames are the antichrists as one unit. They are the soulless ones.
Y
Donald Trump will be impeached.
- Thread starter blackbery
- Start date
No he is not. I know who these witches are who Cook that story up as they together with their doll twinflames are the antichrists as one unit. They are the soulless ones.
Y
david starling
Well-known member
david starling
Well-known member
Many will be deceived. 
Witchyone
Well-known member
No one said perfect. Good, decent, of high moral character. Those are the terms I used.
I loved Ronald Reagan when I was a little girl and didn't understand how his policies led to a deepening divide between rich and poor. I still think he was a decent man, just wrong. Same with both Bushes, particularly Jr.
Dirius
Well-known member
I think I mentioned this many times, but here goes again: The gap between rich and poor isn't a realistic problem, its just a complain leftists use to spread missinformation on how economics work.
In truth during the Reagan years, the average income increased substantially, which means the average worker recieved more pay than they did before. Who cares if the rich became "mega-rich"? The important thing for the average person is that they themselves were becoming more wealthy, which was a by-product of economic policy. Reagan also had to face an early recession which wasn't his fault (in a similar manner as Obama did).
Witchyone
Well-known member
Yeah, you've said that, and yes, that's one of the right's new talking points, but I wholeheartedly and completely disagree. That's one of the fundamental principles informing my ethical and moral view of politics and the world. It's not going to change.
Dirius
Well-known member
Its fine if you disagree. But please explain. How is it someone else getting mega-richer detrimental for you? In what way does it affect you?
Witchyone
Well-known member
Ask Marie Antoinette.
david starling
Well-known member
Make America Greedy Again
david starling
Well-known member
Someone with the mentality of a CEO is unfit for the Presidency. A CEO is a dictator. That's why the "checks and balances" of the 3 branches of Government appear to such a person as being "obstructionist" and a personal attack, rather than what the Constitution mandates: Congress simply doing its job, as its individual members decide.
Dirius
Well-known member
Marie Antoinette got richer by extracting taxes from the common citizens of France. She was part of the goverment. I'm not talking about goverment. Kings and Noblemen from ancient regimes are the equivalent of goverment officials, because they don't get money through entrepeneurship, but through taxation. So your example is just not accurate, in fact it just makes the argument against high taxation stronger.
The equivalent of the "capitalist", in ancient times, would be the merchant-class and craftsman guilds who produced goods and services, not the nobility who are nothing more than the ancient goverments.
How is someone else getting mega-rich, in a capitalist society through entrepeneurship, hurting or affecting you?
Last edited:
david starling
Well-known member
No taxes on income $50,000 per year or less. Then, a flat 10% tax on all income below $1,000,000, with a 1% increase for each additional $1,000,000. No loopholes or off-shore accounts. How would that play out, in addition to a corporate tax-rate of 30%? Would it be enough to fund the infrastructure and a comprehensive Safety-net?
david starling
Well-known member
Then, it would behoove the "entrepreneurs" to shift personal income into the corporations that are making them rich, once they reach the 30% tax bracket, creating more employment and enabling them to pay higher wages.
BlackLioness87
Well-known member
"Mega-Rich" entrepreneurs can affect the market if they try to monopolize it. If so, they can set goods prices at their own will.
Last edited:
Dirius
Well-known member
Natural monopolies are not bad for the economy. If someone achieves a monopoly is because he offers such a good service he ran his competitors out of the market, but it also means he is providing a much cheaper product for the customer.
Last edited:
Dirius
Well-known member
Depends on the size of goverment that is required. It is not the same for every country, it depends on population numbers, GDP, etc. You need to look at the perspective that the more people you have with employment, the smaller the safety-net needs to be.
The idea of taxation is that you get a benefit out of it, that is why you pay them. For example, some taxes are levied to pay for the police force on a state-wide basis (usually property tax, sales tax, etc). Thus the direct % you need to charge is dependant on what size of police you actually need. When it comes to health care, if in a state the majority of the people are privately insured, then you don't really need a big investment for it.
As for the rate itself, there are no magic numbers. Personally I despise income tax, because it is taxation on making money. It is one thing to tax property (which is a limited resource), or to tax sales (because it is optional), or taxes on transportation (because owning a car is optional), but to actually tax individuals for earning a living is theft.
In the case of both corporate and sales taxes, remember those taxes affect the customer much more than the corporation. And if the corporation can't sell at competitive prices, it may go bankrupt and then you have unemployment. So again, these 2 taxes should never be high enough.
Last edited:
david starling
Well-known member
I see no other way to satisfy the intent of the Constitution, as listed in the Preamble. With all the sanctimonious talk about our illustrious Founding Fathers, their Preamble gets little, or even no consideration. Like not reading the directions and thinking anything goes. It appears to me that we can't have a more perfect Union, provide for the General Welfare, ensure domestic Tranquility, and provide for the common defense, without taxation. I think of it as "pay to play", and the more successful you are at playing the Capitalistic game, the higher the fee. If you don't want to pay taxes, just stay poor voluntarily, and do without the luxuries having more money can afford. Not perfect, but the best we can do, within the afore-mentioned parameters.
Dirius
Well-known member
David high taxation doesn't help the public. It ruins the economy. Its just as simple as that. If people have money to pay for taxes, then it means they are not poor in the first place. Capitalism makes people richer, slowly, but wealthier in the end.
