2018 Midterm Election Thread

#2,051
#2,051
SpaceCoastVol said:
Im guessing that if he 'earned' 20 million, then he didn't pay zero $. First off the lical municipalitoes probably got significant rax revenue from his properties. So your next argument will be that HE didn't pay those taxes, his renters did. Well boo hoo. HE was responsible for them, therefore HE paid them. You should hould actually be happy knowing this, because that money went to your great socialist mecca, NYC, and its head cliwn, comrade deBlasio to waste.

What is so typical of you libs is that you take these kinds of stories on face value and do zero thought on the matter. Its like penis envybwith you people. If i could, i would rather give all my tax money to a church and i am not religious. I kniw they will spend it far betyer than your beloved government.
Click to expand...

Fat fingers this morning?
 
#2,054
#2,054
Mick said:
Did the rich guy that earned $20 mil. that paid $0 pay his fair share? If you say yes then you are the one that might need to define "fair share".
Click to expand...
Who paid $0? And you are the one using the term "fair share". Logically defined that for us.
 
#2,056
#2,056
Orange_Crush said:
Who paid $0? And you are the one using the term "fair share". Logically defined that for us.
Click to expand...
According to Webster: reasonable amount

You, I, and everyone else knows that there will never be an agreed upon definition so it seems rather silly to keep asking for one. "Fair share" is a concept / theory. One of the many things defined by a merging of societal views, and ever changing.
 
#2,058
#2,058
luthervol said:
Please do. The thread turned out as expected.
Click to expand...
That's the first intelligent thing you've said in it. Lol it absolute did.

You spouted off with your standard liberal fluff. You were asked to support it. As usual you admitted you couldn't. Then you claimed the problem was with the person who pointed out that you can't support your emotional based ideals.

Rinse, wash, repeat and you'll be on to the next thread doing the same thing again.
 
#2,061
#2,061
luthervol said:
According to Webster: reasonable amount

You, I, and everyone else knows that there will never be an agreed upon definition so it seems rather silly to keep asking for one. "Fair share" is a concept / theory. One of the many things defined by a merging of societal views, and ever changing.
Click to expand...
Then how on God's green earth can you continually call for a standard to be met that you readily just admitted cannot be defined?
 
#2,063
#2,063
luthervol said:
According to Webster: reasonable amount

You, I, and everyone else knows that there will never be an agreed upon definition so it seems rather silly to keep asking for one. "Fair share" is a concept / theory. One of the many things defined by a merging of societal views, and ever changing.
Click to expand...
Tax law cannot be based on ever changing societal standards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88 and SpaceCoastVol
#2,065
#2,065
10% of ALL income paid in taxes. No deductions. However. Must be via Consyitutional amendment. Everybody pays. If you dont pay, you do not have the right to vote either.

That's "fair"
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77 and Obsessed
#2,066
#2,066
Orange_Crush said:
That's the first intelligent thing you've said in it. Lol it absolute did.

You spouted off with your standard liberal fluff. You were asked to support it. As usual you admitted you couldn't. Then you claimed the problem was with the person who pointed out that you can't support your emotional based ideals.

Rinse, wash, repeat and you'll be on to the next thread doing the same thing again.
Click to expand...
Mr. Concrete strikes again.
When you don't get the answer you're looking for based on your assumptions you treat as facts, you claim victory.
Talk about rinse, wash, repeat.....that's been the story of pretty much every conversation we've ever had.
I would also guess that you have the world's worst peripheral vision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mick
#2,070
#2,070
luthervol said:
Mr. Concrete strikes again.
When you don't get the answer you're looking for based on your assumptions you treat as facts, you claim victory.
Talk about rinse, wash, repeat.....that's been the story of pretty much every conversation we've ever had.
I would also guess that you have the world's worst peripheral vision.
Click to expand...
I know who you are responding to. Ignore is a great feature.
 
#2,071
#2,071
luthervol said:
According to Webster: reasonable amount

You, I, and everyone else knows that there will never be an agreed upon definition so it seems rather silly to keep asking for one. "Fair share" is a concept / theory. One of the many things defined by a merging of societal views, and ever changing.
Click to expand...

OK. Use reason to define it.

Oh, you couldn't. So you claimed it a personal opinion. Then you claimed it a social construct. Now you call it a social construct that will never be agreed upon...so...it's not an agreed upon construct. Which is exactly what you inferred earlier when you said that the current socially constructed definition of "faith share" is "wrong".

In other words, you call "fair" whatever society has defined, unless it's not your opinion of fair. Then that's not the definition of "fair" anymore. Then it's no longer a socially constructed definition. It's a luther-constructed definition.

And it's convenient of you to define your personal definition of "fair" that you want enforced on people to take away their personal property, and then call it unreasonable for people to ask you for a rational and logical definition of what standard you are using to steal from others, and why it's fair to steal from them. Yes... who would ask for that?

So... Again... It's a complete and utter failure at any semblance of reason and logic. As is invariably the case, you bring an emotional-based, indefensible argument to the table, balk when you're asked to support it, retreat to your safe space of "personal opinion" (which you seem to incorrectly believe insulates you from the need to defend your arguments), and then claim it's the intellectual failure of the person who pointed out you shortcomings.

In other words, Luther luthering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77 and Obsessed
#2,072
#2,072
SpaceCoastVol said:
10% of ALL income paid in taxes. No deductions. However. Must be via Consyitutional amendment. Everybody pays. If you dont pay, you do not have the right to vote either.

That's "fair"
Click to expand...
So that's your definition of fair? Now we're getting somewhere.
 
#2,073
#2,073
luthervol said:
Mr. Concrete strikes again.
When you don't get the answer you're looking for based on your assumptions you treat as facts, you claim victory.
Talk about rinse, wash, repeat.....that's been the story of pretty much every conversation we've ever had.
I would also guess that you have the world's worst peripheral vision.
Click to expand...
We know as much about you by what you choose not to respond to as what you do. Very telling. Luther loothering.
 
#2,074
#2,074
Mick said:
That is hypothetical, but seems to apply to Kushner's situation based on the liked articles about it.
Click to expand...
Ok. I wanna copy whatever that was doing.
Rental income is unearned income. As such there is a different tax on it. There is less money going to taxes with unearned income but it is taxed. Sometimes that tax can be offset with depreciation, capital improvements, equipment purchases, or losses in the portfolio.
Real estate taxes are also deducted but must be paid regardless of the condition or occupancy of the property.
 
#2,075
#2,075
Orange_Crush said:
OK. Use reason to define it.

Oh, you couldn't. So you claimed it a personal opinion. Then you claimed it a social construct. Now you call it a social construct that will never be agreed upon...so...it's not an agreed upon construct. Which is exactly what you inferred earlier when you said that the current socially constructed definition of "faith share" is "wrong".

In other words, you call "fair" whatever society has defined, unless it's not your opinion of fair. Then that's not the definition of "fair" anymore. Then it's no longer a socially constructed definition. It's a luther-constructed definition.

And it's convenient of you to define your personal definition of "fair" that you want enforced on people to take away their personal property, and then call it unreasonable for people to ask you for a rational and logical definition of what standard you are using to steal from others, and why it's fair to steal from them. Yes... who would ask for that?

So... Again... It's a complete and utter failure at any semblance of reason and logic. As is invariably the case, you bring an emotional-based, indefensible argument to the table, balk when you're asked to support it, retreat to your safe space of "personal opinion" (which you seem to incorrectly believe insulates you from the need to defend your arguments), and then claim it's the intellectual failure of the person who pointed out you shortcomings.

In other words, Luther luthering.
Click to expand...
Are you nuts? I gave you the dictionary definition. Not good enough? Why?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top