Republicans Push $269 Billion Handout For Millionaire Heirs And Heiresses

Since the person inheriting the estate didn't earn it, aren't they the ones getting a hand out?

 

LOL - Yeah, that too.

 

With liberals, facts are propaganda.

 

Passing wealth from one family member to the next generation is considered a hand out to a liberal. Handing out taxpayer dollars out to those who earn nothing is not.

 

Liberals can always justify taxing the same accumulation of money over and over again. They can always justify more taxes. They can never to,erase less. Morality to them is defined by how many times they can tax the same money.

Why should money which was already taxed be taxed again because my family passed it on to me?

The only reason that I can find is that they are envious and want to get even with someone.

 

Who cares? You should, because what they are telling you is common sense. What has retarded our economic recovery is limited demand, and that comes from stagnant (or falling) and higher prices. The geese that lay the golden eggs are not those at the top, but the consumers in the middle, like the kind who buy Ben & Jerry's ice cream. Of new cars. Or houses. Or all of the many things that make our economy go. In the process, they'd also pay more taxes which means governments would have funds to accomplish societal goals with limited or no tax increases. I don't believe you've grasped this basic lesson.

 

I think I said this, "To put it another way, perhaps it is a handout. But since you earned it, do you hand it out to whom you want and does the government confiscate and decides who will get the handouts."

So I already admitted it is a handout. The difference is who gets to decide whom your life work will be handed out to. If I won the lottery and wanted to leave it to my kids after I die, the government have already got their share at the 39.6 tax rate. So just because I died, what gives the government the right to come back and get another 20% or whatever the rate is of what is left? If I wanted the government to get 20% or whatever, I would have included them in my will.

I do not care if I have only one dollar in my bank account or 500 million. The government has already gotten their share.
"

 

Are you sure they didn't pay taxes? How much they paid in taxes is up to the IRS. if they spent more time scrutinizing THAT instead of find conservative groups to harass, you might not be asking that question at all.

 

Why should the money the family owns be taxed to give to some one who didn't even earn it in the first place?

 

I can work for my family business and take part in its growth and development and pay taxes on that along with the rest of my family, but when my parents pass all of the business on to me I get taxed again on the very same accumulation of money? How is that considered right?

Because I did not earn it all myself all by myself? So what?

 

It seems that the left is always demanding that less people pay more and more.

We currently have 47% of the workforce not paying any income tax and they claim that the ones paying the most are not paying their fair share. Are the 47% paying nothing paying "their fair share"? Should we exclude more people from the federal income tax?

They will repspond by saying that the 47% paying no income tax, pay other taxes. Well, so do the people who are paying the income tax. In fact they also pay more in those other taxes than the 47%. They pay more in sales taxes, property taxes, state income taxes where applicable, licensing fees etc.


The left is always calling for less people to pay more. Of course they never agree to pay more themselves.

 

What wave? Voter turnout in 2014 was abysmal.

 

That's the approved way to explain the ass whooping the Democrats took.

 

What difference does it make? There are already wealthy Democrats who claim to help the poor, yet steal money from them with taxes and higher prices due to regulations.

 

I constantly hear the left claim that they lost the election, not because of their policies, but because of low voter turnout. I ran that through Google Translator and this is what came out:

"Democrats lost the election because nobody was interested enough in what they were selling to take the time vote".

 

This will worsen our deficit and provide absolutely zero economic benefit. I don't see how anyone could defend this.

- - - Updated - - -

If that were the case then why do they come out much higher during presidential elections to vote democrat?

 

.........

 

And republicans aren't promising benefits?

 

Not according to the Democrats. According to them, the Republicans want to take everything away and have a war against....well, everything.

 

Democrats= Macro benefits

Republican= Micro benefits

A hand up instead of a handout which has resulted into a lifestyle norm in income for 47% of the American people. It is a fact the liberal democrats have failed our nation miserably after implementing "The Great Society", which confirms what Nunya D quote was:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy". - Elmer T. Peterson (9 December 1951).

Sadly, liberal policy will destroy our nation

 

Isn't that what republicans are claiming democrats are doing?

- - - Updated - - -

Define a macro benefit and a micro benefit.

 

47% of Americans on the public dole, who are also your voting base

 

Are you saying that perotista is a liberal? Because they're the one who said that giving money to someone who didn't earn it was a hand out. I'm simply saying that money can be taxed any time changes hands.

 

Is it immoral to charge you sales tax on the same money you already paid income tax on?

 

And I'm saying that just because a government says it can, doesn't mean it's right.