twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
The more money you make, the greater your financial obligation to society.
Why? What justification can you provide for taking something from someone, and giving to someone else? What justifies this?
The more money you make, the greater your financial obligation to society.
Why? What justification can you provide for taking something from someone, and giving to someone else? What justifies this?
Uh OK how about this. After forcing the "rich" to donate against their will everything they have, since most the "poor" are still going to be poor, whose wealth do you intend to "donate" for redistribution next, yours?I reject the premise that it is a Confiscation. In answer to your question: The wealthy have a greater financial obligation to society than the poor.--because the wealthy has the money.
I reject the premise that it is a Confiscation. In answer to your question: The wealthy have a greater financial obligation to society than the poor.--because the wealthy has the money.
I'm Gay, and unhappy about President Obama's policies regarding Gays.--don't fret, one more block of four years, and Gay Marriage will be National.
You're sounding like Beretta Lady. Do you know what you're replying to? If so, do you know what you're saying? Because one of those is a negative. :uhoh:Keep on believing that.
Until the government takes control over every business (all state run) then it will always be a "have" that hires a "have not." Just cuz some folks don't like most of the "haves" does not mean that a "have not" will not cash the paycheck the "have" gave him.
Everybody gets paid by a "have".....if they are willing to work that is. Sadly a great subset of our citizenry are not inclined to work so their "paycheck" comes from the "have" of last resort. The "have" that takes from the "rich" and giveth to the poor.
No person deserves a damn thing, including individuals who purport to have Earned.
Entitlement is Entitlement.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Gay Marriage will never be a national Fed Law, for or against. Mind you I'm for anyone getting married, but the Federal Government has no such powers over marriage.. It is left up to the states and THE PEOPLE. Please read the constitution, it does not outline what we can do, but what the Government can't do.
Then again Obama has never been one to follow the constitution, so maybe there is hope for national gay marriage lol.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Gay Marriage will never be a national Fed Law, for or against. Mind you I'm for anyone getting married, but the Federal Government has no such powers over marriage.. It is left up to the states and THE PEOPLE. Please read the constitution, it does not outline what we can do, but what the Government can't do.
Then again Obama has never been one to follow the constitution, so maybe there is hope for national gay marriage lol.
Mr. Obama holds a 10-point lead in Ohio among those who say they will definitely vote, a lead propelled by a 25-point advantage among women. Romney holds an 8-point lead among men. The president holds a 35-point edge among voters under 35 years old, and a 5-point lead among those ages 35-64; the two candidates are effectively tied among Ohio seniors. Sixty-two percent of Ohio likely voters say the auto bailout, which had a significant impact on the state's economy, was a success, while just 30 percent say it was a failure. Both candidates will campaign in Ohio Wednesday; the president led Romney by six points in the state last month.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162...tag=cbsnewsSectionsArea;cbsnewsSectionsArea.1
Whatever the reason Republicans are losing the battle for younger people, and females, Republicans better figure out how to bring them into the fold, or they will see increased losses in the coming years.
If I may ask. What fiscal earned number a year does one have to make, not to be considered a poor free loader?
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
I'm not remotely interested in defending Mitt Romney. He's as much of an inexcusable ****** bag as Barack Obama.
Having said that, anyone with income on which they don't pay taxes is a free-loader. Period. I don't care who they are, I don't care what laws enable it. Our non-Medicare, non-Social Security tax system today is fundamentally predicated on income taxes, so anyone not paying those income taxes is a free-loader, whether they're legally a free-loader or not. Take the emotional "What about granny and gunny?" crap and shove it in your pie hole.
Now. It is also true that income-based taxation is a horrible system, and we should replace that model. There are several viable methods, the details of which are irrelevant.
However, until we switch to a better taxation model, if you don't pay income taxes on income, you're a free-loader. End of discussion.
Preemptive edit for the simple-minded: If you have no income, obviously you shouldn't be paying income taxes. Duh. However, such a situation highlights one of the reasons income-based taxation is such a crappy model in the first place, which is that those without income end up receiving government "services" without paying for them, which then makes them free-loaders anyway. Duh.
My comment is in reference to the 2nd to last paragraph.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
I'm not remotely interested in defending Mitt Romney. He's as much of an inexcusable ****** bag as Barack Obama.
Having said that, anyone with income on which they don't pay taxes is a free-loader. Period. I don't care who they are, I don't care what laws enable it. Our non-Medicare, non-Social Security tax system today is fundamentally predicated on income taxes, so anyone not paying those income taxes is a free-loader, whether they're legally a free-loader or not. Take the emotional "What about granny and gunny?" crap and shove it in your pie hole.
Now. It is also true that income-based taxation is a horrible system, and we should replace that model. There are several viable methods, the details of which are irrelevant.
However, until we switch to a better taxation model, if you don't pay income taxes on income, you're a free-loader. End of discussion.
Preemptive edit for the simple-minded: If you have no income, obviously you shouldn't be paying income taxes. Duh. However, such a situation highlights one of the reasons income-based taxation is such a crappy model in the first place, which is that those without income end up receiving government "services" without paying for them, which then makes them free-loaders anyway. Duh.
Oh, my. Thank you. I can see I was commenting to the wrong person.
I'm not remotely interested in defending Mitt Romney. He's as much of an inexcusable ****** bag as Barack Obama.
Having said that, anyone with income on which they don't pay taxes is a free-loader. Period. I don't care who they are, I don't care what laws enable it. Our non-Medicare, non-Social Security tax system today is fundamentally predicated on income taxes, so anyone not paying those income taxes is a free-loader, whether they're legally a free-loader or not. Take the emotional "What about granny and gunny?" crap and shove it in your pie hole.
Now. It is also true that income-based taxation is a horrible system, and we should replace that model. There are several viable methods, the details of which are irrelevant.
However, until we switch to a better taxation model, if you don't pay income taxes on income, you're a free-loader. End of discussion.
Preemptive edit for the simple-minded: If you have no income, obviously you shouldn't be paying income taxes. Duh. However, such a situation highlights one of the reasons income-based taxation is such a crappy model in the first place, which is that those without income end up receiving government "services" without paying for them, which then makes them free-loaders anyway. Duh.
If I may ask. What fiscal earned number a year does one have to make, not to be considered a poor free loader?
My comment is in reference to the 2nd to last paragraph.
Oh, my.
What if I disagree with having my earnings expropriated by an armed gang who forces me to accept their services?
I would say anyone who doesn't pay taxes is a courageous fellow who deserves our support. There is no morality in taxation. There is no difference between the Mafia making you an offer you can't refuse in regards to protection money, and government. Both give you no choice. Both require you to make the payment. Both will visit anything from annoyance to personal destruction on you if you refuse. A case can be made that the Mafia is a little better because they do not pretend legitimacy. They know they're criminals.