Have Democrats Become the Party of the Rich?

End tax exemptions for nonprofits is one looming opportunity.

 

you mean like the Church?

 

Well I don't draw the line from eugenics to tax policy, but I do think the hypocrisy is funny. They are all in favor of taxing the rich until they find out they are the rich!

 

What tax loopholes are you talking about? Be specific.

 

"Become"? They always have been.

 

That one is.

 

The poor love to go to San Francisco to live on the Street under the watchful eyes of Democrats. Watching is what Democrats always are good at.

 

Again I return to using sports to explain.
Republicans coach the team to perform.
Democrats make excuses for the team and tell them the Coaches will play the game.

 

the ones that allow Trump, Amazon and others to pay little to no taxes

 

yeah, they hate evolution but love darwin for social policy. Go figure.

 

Mega Churches yes . If you have Jet and Boat . Yup pay

Small Churches usually have little money but see above

We went and toured on the red buses, you could smell the **** .

 

Only if you're entirely invested in the GESTURE, and not the outcomes.

 

The fairest and best form of tax collection is paying sales taxes at the point of the sale.
When I order from Amazon.com, they always include sales taxes.
I do not need to disclose a thing. I do not need to see an accountant. I do not need to use a computer program. It is deducted from my bank.
Income taxes do not work like that.
Sales taxes are part of the daily collection process by almost all businesses.

By the way, Biden wants the Bank you use to report when you spend $600. When you pay the home mortgage, triggers a report. Pay your credit card, triggers report.
Biden must be stopped. We are not servants of the boys in DC, they supposedly work for us.

 

1) Produce a child, then raise them without consequences and see what happens. You could run the same experiment with a puppy, if a kid is too tricky. Let them think bad choices don't have consequences. Seriously, that you even need to ask why doing this always leads to disaster, tells me you're either spectacularly naive (which I doubt), or need to keep up the pretence that removing consequences is a kindness.

2) On the contrary .. we're VERY SIMPLE social mammals. Any attempt to add complexity is either a result of grotesque levels of privilege (ie the mindset that every pecadillo must be catered to), or the desire to remove consequences via the 'not my fault' device.

3) Segregation of any kind is racism. Funding predicated upon race is racism.

 

That may be so ... but since I'm not a conservative I couldn't claim it for fact.

 

There was a time in the latter 20thC, when there was a solid working class cohort, gloriously free from cultish ideology. Now replaced by middle-class Progressives.

 

Why are churches treated as businesses by Democrats?
Why would a person paying income taxes, force the church to pay taxes for exercising religion?

Take my church. When disasters hit citizens my church rushes aid every time. And they feed the victims and house them.
So tax my church?
I don't think so.
Next thing Democrats will impose taxes on every state.

 

I mean ALL of them. If you start picking and choosing then you immediately create a market for lobbyists to sell congress folks on giving them a deduction. So yes, get rid of all of them. Why shouldn't everyone pay taxes on their income? The more shoulders under the load, the lighter it is for everyone.

And, I would follow that up with: "You are welcome to as much government as you are collectively willing to pay for, now, not as much as you are willing to have your children and grandchildren pay for."

Our gross income is $23,024.345Billion

Every $Billion you want government to spend = 0.0043% in income tax.

 

1) Glad we agree.

2) That may be the case in America, but it isn't where I live. Doctors (and dentists, and engineers, etc) have no trouble repaying their loans within a few years. Of course if they try to do it while living independently and thus paying rents etc, it'll take forever - but I'm only talking about sensible graduates. Meantime, kids should be 'saving for retirement' from their first pay check. IOW, saving for a downpayment on property. Heck, they should be saving every cent possible from their first high school job! My kids and their respective friends have all done this. Some have been able to buy investment properties (in cheap areas - obviously) for cash by the time they graduate. Given they make around $1000 a month on those investments via rents, plus what they earn as new STEM grads, and those student loans are virtually nothing. As long as they stay at home until all debts are paid and property is secured, they're set. 'Saving for retirement' happens automatically after that point, and requires no separate effort - if that makes sense. And all of this is a result of self-discipline - not privilege.

3) Well you're wrong. Age pensioners and a couple of other groups get subsidised drugs, but everyone else is obliged to pay the market rate. It will take you two minutes to verify this via google.

 

Agreed, if gonna take away tax exempt status from charities, then churches must be included

 

I repeat, your comment made no sense. Helping people in real ways is not 'gesture'. That's ideological nonsense.

 

Social policy to help those in need has nothing to do with child rearing. Child rearing it's it's own subject. The puppy analogy is simplistic, and therefore doesn't work. Note that 'simplistic' doesn't mean 'simple', it means reduced beyond the point it can be logically reduced such that it's no longer workable.

AS someone who has been poor, and been helped , and has worked with poor, and helped them, I can testify on some authority that you are wrong.

Does that mean there isn't some dependency going on, well, it's like this, you have to weigh a program on the whole, and on the whole, many programs are a good thing. That doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement but you do not toss out the baby with your bullshit ideological bathwater.

I didn't say "simple" i said 'simplistic', the difference is simple is viable, simplistic is not. No one said 'every pecadillo must be catered to', where do you get this nonsense? Where do you get this 'not my fault' crap. Some things aren't someone's fault, somethings are. It's all about discernment and not blanket generalities.

Segregation is a policy, a decree from the state. There is none of that with HBCUs and segregation has been outlawed in the US.

Birds of a feather are allow to flock together, as long as they do not turn away non birds of a feather.

In point of fact, HBCUs have been accepting white students for decades.

https://www.onlinechristiancolleges.com/faq/can-white-students-apply-historically-black-colleges/

Therefore, not racist.

You really need to learn what racism is, and isn't.

 

1) Child rearing (ie the quality of it) has everything to do with a later need for welfare or public assistance. And the puppy analogy is actually perfect. We are social mammals, just like canines. We learn young that we can't simply go our own way. We learn that if we want the benefits and security of the pack, we must conform to the expectations of the pack. What makes these absurd gestures unworkable is the failure to acknowledge our social mammalian nature.

2) The 'poor' person is helped the most by learning self-discipline. Nothing provided will be useful unless and until the recipient has the fortitude to put it to work. I also came from a 'poor' background, and the only thing that made long term and substantial difference in my escape from that 'poverty', was discipline of myself.

3) We don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water .. we need to give notice that this entrenched tolerance of abuse of public assistance, will cease from a certain point. People will be given plenty of time to get their ducks in a row, and make choices according to their preferences and circumstances. Which of course means that if they choose not to adapt to the new parameters, it will be none of the System's business - since they've chosen to opt out of it. Unless you think we should force people to do these kinds of things?

4) Our nature makes us want to avoid personal responsibility for our own misbehaviour. Every time we remove a consequence from poor choices, we provide an impetus to continue with that behaviour - and our willingness to remove consequences VALIDATES the idea that we can claim no personal responsibility. We can blame 'society', or 'racism', or whatever we're told to blame for our crappy choices. And yes, discernment is crucial! See my point above (3), which explains how we can discern abuse from legitimacy.

5) Different funding according to race is racism.

6) Oh? Please do tell me what racism is - if it isn't acting according to race, rather than content of character.

 

Your absolutely wrong about HBCUs being racist, and I explained it. Therefore, you have a confusion on the precise nature of racism, though you might understand other aspects of it, but on that particular aspect, you are in error.

As for the rest, I get the idea you are against social programs.

Fine, let's see what the voters say about that.

 

On the contrary, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Socialist Lefty, and absolutely for 'Big Govt'.

The difference between myself and the fey Progressive, is that I know that social programs are unsustainable when the system is thoroughly abused - as it is. And I know that it's injustice to lose precious resources to abusers, while those in genuine need benefit not an iota more than the abusers.

The whole system is anti-human, and we have the Welfare State to blame for it.