A tax analogy, who's really paying their fair share?

MellowFarmer said:
Also, taking from some to give to all doesn't make any sense if there is an even or somewhat even distribution of wealth. In a society where 20% of the people control 85% of the wealth- well actually That doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to Me at all! That means the huge majority of the society, 4/5 of the population only controls 1/5 of that society's wealth. How could that happen in a society that boasts equal opportunity? Make some sense of it for me, could you?
Click to expand...

I honestly don't think there is much to explain to you. Remember you said that the post office doesn't lose money...

I could try all I want, to show your why your theories of "fairness" are the epitome of contradiction, and that of complete mathematical fallacy. You would just never understand, because it's apparent you have a solid basis of ignorance in which you're operating off, in regards to your support for a "more fair" system.

People do have lots of equal opportunity in this country, it's just that a lot of people who complain they don't, can't tell their head from their ass, and to top it off, usually have self-entitlement issues.
 
UncleBuck said:
read the 16th amendment, you psycho mooch.
Click to expand...

The 16th amendment actually enforces my standpoint. LOL.

It's you who doesn't understand the 16th amendment buddy, let alone the other amendments. You seem to think that any additional tax, piled into, and shrouded behind the curtain of the 16th amendment, is somehow a just tax. Well, you're wrong.

Some taxes are, and will always be illegal, and it doesn't change just because they are piled on top of, an existing tax that is just. That is what we call corruption, and America does a little more of it everyday.

There are other parts of the constitution, that the government's current illegal taxes, blatantly breach. I won't go into depth with you on those, because it will be a never ending fountain of ignorance, and fallacious self reassurance.
 
UncleBuck said:
you are the last person to be talking about self-entitlement issues, tax cheating mooch.
Click to expand...

Taking what's mine isn't self-entitlement, it's mine to begin with, because I earned it.

Stealing from me, to give to someone, who thinks it's their right to be given something, is essentially self-entitlement in regards to that recipient.
 
InCognition said:
The 16th amendment actually enforces my standpoint. LOL.
Click to expand...

your argument is that taxes are unconstitutional.

my argument is that you need to read the 16th amendment. browsing up on SCOTUS precedent for cases surrounding the 16th amendment would help too, but you'll just cherrypick the one or two cases that got reversed later on by higher courts.
 
InCognition said:
Taking what's mine isn't self-entitlement, it's mine to begin with, because I earned it.

Stealing from me, to give to someone, who thinks it's their right to be given something, is essentially self-entitlement in regards to that recipient.
Click to expand...

read the 16th amendment, you psychotic mooch.
 
UncleBuck said:
your argument is that taxes are unconstitutional.

my argument is that you need to read the 16th amendment. browsing up on SCOTUS precedent for cases surrounding the 16th amendment would help too, but you'll just cherrypick the one or two cases that got reversed later on by higher courts.
Click to expand...

Taxes are not unconstitutional... unconstitutional taxes are though.

Keep manipulating my statements into your delusional paradigm of reality, it's funny.
 
InCognition said:
Taxes are not unconstitutional... unconstitutional taxes are though.

Keep manipulating my statements into your delusional paradigm of reality, it's funny.
Click to expand...

which taxes are unconstitutional?

medicare/medicaid taxes are not according to any SCOTUS decision. ditto SS. 16th amendment allows for income taxes and is backed up by the SCOTUS.

you're just a self-entitled little mooch.
 
We are confusing income with wealth. A person or family can have billions, but no income at all. They would pay no taxes, but for perhaps local sales and property tax. The inheritance tax, on their death, is the only real tax they would ever pay. Unfortunately, this wrecks havoc on the family-owned farm. Corporations, such as ADM, the largest recipient of government subsidies ever, never die, so they never pay that tax.
 
lifegoesonbrah said:
There has never been a regulation or tax that 'Libertarian' Bucky didn't love.
Click to expand...

this is your problem: dishonesty.

i never professed love for the estate tax, i simply pointed out that red's scenario of family farms keeling over left and right from the estate tax was false. it's been debunked over and over again FFS.

you're going to have a tough time in college with mental musings like yours.
 
UncleBuck said:
this is your problem: dishonesty.

i never professed love for the estate tax, i simply pointed out that red's scenario of family farms keeling over left and right from the estate tax was false. it's been debunked over and over again FFS.

you're going to have a tough time in college with mental musings like yours.
Click to expand...

You did profess to be a Libertarian yet you defend every plant placement regulation or death tax that you can. You are so awesome.
 
Oh I was going to ask you this yesterday... my neighbor is tilling a garden and YOU CAN SEE IT FROM THE ROAD. Should I call in the feds to fine him for his vegetable obnoxiousness?
 
lifegoesonbrah said:
You did profess to be a Libertarian yet you defend every plant placement regulation or death tax that you can. You are so awesome.
Click to expand...

quote me "professing to be a libertarian". lol.

you should also try to quote me defending the estate tax. you can easily find me calling out someone's lies about the estate tax above, but no defense. just a calling out of a liar.

:dunce:
 
lifegoesonbrah said:
Oh I was going to ask you this yesterday... my neighbor is tilling a garden and YOU CAN SEE IT FROM THE ROAD. Should I call in the feds to fine him for his vegetable obnoxiousness?
Click to expand...

since you insist on mischaracterizing even the simplest of all things, i'm going to go ahead and call you a blithering fucktard.

the feds have nothing to do with towns and neighborhoods making rules about what your front yard should look like you failed abortion.

i thought old mcronald tardbots like yourself wanted control to be held at the most local level possible, as is the case with front yard gardens. you contradict yourself all the time and you run with it because you are too much of a dullard to realize your fail. you irksome blatherskite.
 
UncleBuck said:
which taxes are unconstitutional?

medicare/medicaid taxes are not according to any SCOTUS decision. ditto SS. 16th amendment allows for income taxes and is backed up by the SCOTUS.

you're just a self-entitled little mooch.
Click to expand...

Obama's health care shenanigans, are unconstitutional in more than one way, and breach several sections of multiple amendments, directly and indirectly. No amount of lawyers or "court decisions" will be able to convey the delusion, that it is somehow constitutional.

You're apparently convinced that Obama's health care mandates are constitutional, and no matter what facts are thrown at you, you will refuse to change your delusion that "they are constitutional". This is because your beliefs that the mandates are constitutional, are the beliefs that are backing your fantasy-world wishes.

Your general theory on constitutionality in regards to law is incredibly ignorant. If interpreted correctly, by your beliefs it would be legal to make ammunition illegal, even though that indirectly infringes on the 2nd amendment. When you can't comprehend how a law is actually illegal, based on it's direct or indirect affect on superior constitutional law, what are you eligible in comprehending?

By SS, I'm assuming you mean social security. Social security while technically constitutional, is bogus as well, no matter how it's structured (at least it's constitutional though). I don't need to argue against Social Security though, because no matter how it's legally or constitutionally backed, it's fallacy-orientated creation and structure, will take care of itself. Social security will self implode on it's own, because it's not sustainable. Social security has done nothing but caused financial irresponsibility among the people in this country. Systems that manifest irresponsibility, fed off the roots of unsustainability are destined to fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top