"I helped create the GOP tax myth. Trump is wrong. Tax cuts don't equal growth."

so poor people invented the iphone?????? and are working on driverless car??????????

 

they invest 100% of what they have. 1+1=2 . you didn't know that?

 

some do and they pay less tax per dollar earned on that, why is labored income taxed more? some invest overseas, some invest in corps that employ overseas

if this tax cut only included the middle class, the right woudl be up in arms, saying how we gonna pay for it

as long as it has huge tax cuts for the rich attached, they support it... why

did you fight the right for ending the payroll tax cuts that benefited the middle class as much as you fight for tax cuts for the rich

 

how about this for a tax plan, end the tax loopholes for the rich, take that and raise the tax free amount one can earn, that way everyone benefits equally, rich or poor

I would prefer a flat tax, one where everyone pays the same % for every dollar they earn over the poverty line, it is the only fair system, for both rich and poor and everyone in-between alike - could also make the first 10k per year of investment income tax free

 

James, you have no credibility in my mind. I've made that pretty clear. You can continue to respond if you like, I can't stop you, but you're wasting your time.

 

I guess the liberal has credibility by saying taxes are not used to pay for government programs rather the money is burned in a big fire once a year.

 

If we want the economy to grow like it did from the Stone Age to here we need new inventions like cancer cures and they come from the rich who have far less to invest thank to exorbitant taxes which liberals use to buy votes and cripple unproductive people with welfare. Do you get this??

 

Loophole??? How can there be a loophole when the top 1% pay 42% of taxes rather than 1% of taxes

 

Actually, they do buy private planes, and yachts every once in a while, but are not influenced by a tax cut.
And not enough of 'em to make a difference. So yes---Hah bloody Hah!

 

*Sigh*, because taxes aren't charged by the person, but rather your level of income and wealth. Since the top 1% own 42% of all the wealth and earn 36% of all the income, they pay more.

Not sure why this is such a hard idea for people like you to understand James.

 

Actually fair is what happens at Amazon everybody pays the same price no matter if they are rich and poor .

 

1) Amazon and Macy's don't price products based on each customer's income. Each customer pays the same price regardless of income
2) Govt should price the same way
3) the idea of the rich paying for everyone is anti American. We came here to be free not to be on welfare from the rich
4) according to liberals the rich have to provide our jobs, our products, and our govt??
5) its anti-science, anti-evolution, and anti-America. It's survival of the least fit rather than survival of the fittest

Now I assume you see the superior logic of the conservative libertarian position?

 

its a fact, stupid liberals tried tax on yachts, people stopped buying yachts, and the tax had to be repealed because all the middle class and poor folks in the industry lost their jobs. Want to bet???

 

James - did it work for Kansas?

 

absurd, hardly a scientific experiment. Look at East/West Germany, Cuba /Florida, Taiwan/Communist China, North/South Korea. China just switched to Republican capitalism and eliminated 40% of the poverty on earth. Do you get it now?

 

No, what I see is someone who doesn't understand economics, science, history or human behavior.

1) Amazon/ Macy's - False dichotomy.
2) Without taxes, we'd simply live a neo-feudalistic society of lords and serfs
3) Anti-American? Show me where it's written what "American" is.
4) The rich don't have to do anything. They do so because of the rewards they receive. At one time the wealthy were taxed as high as 94%. Did they all quit, move somewhere else or stop working? Nope.
5) You've shown that you don't understand science, the science of evolution and you don't get to decide what is "American". Case in point, "survival of the (fit or fittest, take your pick) has nothing to do with science, evolution and it certainly isn't "American".

 

actually you forgot to say why Amazon should charge same price to all and not govt???

 

insanity, no one said there should be no taxes. If I did I"ll pay you $10000. Bet? Does the liberal understand why you had to create a straw man??

 

OMG!!!!actually the Declaration and Constitution!!!

 

you mean except provide our jobs, products, and govt so we all don't perish tomorrow. Making our heroic saviors our enemies is how Stalin and Mao slowly starved 120 million to death. Why did they do it? Because they lacked the ability to invent things themselves and so sought power another way, by making war on those who were their superiors as if to pretend they did not exist.

 

OMG!!!! the liberal does not think Darwin was a scientist?

Wiki: "Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."
Herbert Spencer first used the phrase, after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, in his Principles of Biology (1864), in which he drew parallels between his own economic theories and Darwin's biological ones: "This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."[1]

=

 

I'm saying it's a false dichotomy. If you don't understand the term, Google it.

 

If we taxed the same for every person, even though 1% of those people made 36% of the income and held 42% of the wealth, my claim still stands.

Do you know of a situation anywhere in the world where everyone was taxed at the same rate? Yes, how did it work out? No? You know why? Because it's a stupid idea.

 

Quotes, please.

 

I know how you are using the term. Philosopher Herbert Spencer coined the term "survival of the fittest", though what he was talking about and what Darwin meant by it are two different things.

Fitness as Darwin meant it had to do with a creatures ability to adapt to changing environments, not physical or mental fitness.