Donald Trump

How would you assess taxes? Would you base the tax % on the amount of income you get? That seems like the most logical route to me.

How is it "theft" if taxes are assessed based on the amount of income you get?

 

You should honestly go and give away everything you have since there is always someone worse off than you. But I guess you won't do that because you like having the moral highground when it's not your money that's being given away. Liberals are all alike, let's give free money to everyone, but I'm not giving anything.

And taxation is theft, welcome to the real world.

 

Congratulations, you posted several article links that are irrelevant to my point and that I'm not going to waste my time reading.
Actually, you know what, I'll dabble into it a little bit.
Ben Carson's tax proposal or his, "tax cut for the rich" (as you say it) actually validates my point.

"He said the flat-tax rate would remain revenue-neutral. "
'“We spent over $19 trillion eradicating poverty. Has it worked? You know we have 10 times more people on food stamps, more poverty, incarceration, crime, broken families, out of wedlock births, everything that was supposed to get better is not only worse -- it’s much worse… What we do know that works is that [when] people take an interest in other people and they invest in them and personal relationships develop -- that’s what brings people out of poverty,” he said.'
Straight from your article.
You need to re-read it. If you can't understand the points made from these two quotes then don't bother responding. I'm not going to argue with a child about men's subjects.

Common sense would be radicating the IRS and all the bullshit involved and implementing a fair tax. Now that's common sense. Why would the government do that though? Too many people are reaping weekly paychecks while working for the IRS/ The gov. makes too much money from the IRS/ The IRS is one of, if not THE strongest agency the gov. has reigning over its citizens.

PS - Ghast, higher taxes = more wealth redistribution = more reliance on government by the poor/lazy/unable to work. You really need to educate yourself.

 

Theft is taking something from someone without their consent. It doesn't matter how rich they are or if they an afford it. It doesn't make it ok to steal from people just because they can afford it, or just because they made more money than you.

 

Yeah makes sense ?
Let's survey 10 people in most radicalised areas and generalize 1.5billion people ?

 

Have no fear, Ghast will ignore everything you just wrote and claim you never replied to his arguments and that he answered yours.

//PS! Can't wait for the epic Ghast comment: "This is my last reply to this thread, because i play chess like doves and I just won the debate". Inb4 banned for pointing out the obvious.

 

Read below. Adding a tax cap doesn't help any of these issues.

Source

 

I do not disagree that taxation is necessary in some form. That is obvious. However, this whole idea that the rich need to support the poor (most of which, at least in America, are able to work, but are too lazy/popped out 6 kids so they could receive $150k/year payed for by the wealthy) is wrong.
A fair tax would be ideal. Ghast, if you don't know what it is, do some research on it. It's fair, just as it implies, and it seems like that's what you're looking for.

Seven states currently do not have any form of income tax and they are doing just fine.
Income tax is not the best way to sustain the foundation of our country. Over taxing the wealthy/those who work hard/ those who are brilliant/ those who went through enormous amounts of schooling to succeed in life is not a solution to anything and morally is wrong.

Here's a few statements made by founders of America/very important people in our history on taxation ghast.


Thomas Jefferson
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

Alexander Hamilton
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare… The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America"

James Madison
"As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.

There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

And my favorite one
Ben Franklin
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

Just some things to ponder.

 

Thank you, for completely ignoring my logical argument, and once again, providing a useless and irrelevant comment.

 

Your argument is:

"Since the problems which taxation is supposed to help is still a problem, reducing taxes shouldn't matter"

My reply to all 3 of your concerns regarding taxation covers this. I'll come back in around 5 hours after my work shift is done to go more in depth with your comment.

 

You obviously have no idea what's going on and have stumbled into a conversation that goes right over your head.
The spam forum is located elsewhere.
While you're at it, go ahead and read this: http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/pamphlet.pdf

No, that was not my argument at all. Good try.
Ben Carson's tax plan does not, "only reduce taxes for the wealthy."
Income taxation is also very nasty, inefficient, corrupted, and is not the best route of taxation.

 

No they don't. If citizens got to choose how much they each paid in taxes, each person would choose to pay no taxes. The difference between taxes and charity, which you are clearly confusing, is that you choose to donate your money to charity, but taxes are taken from you by force.

Objectively false. Citizens don't get to choose what they get to spend tax money on. If they did, they wouldn't have been taxed it and they would have literally chosen where to spend it themselves!

Objectively false! If I stole your car and left $5 in the parking spot, it is still theft because you didn't decide to sell it for $5!

Objectively false once again. When you rent a room/house, you are making a voluntary decision to trade money for goods. When you are taxed, it is done without your consent.

Literally supporting my point. The first is not voluntary, the second is.

What a joke.

 

*sigh*

I've already read every link you sent me. Your only fallback is to tell me "hurr hurr go search!"

I require of you a very simple task. Go to these articles you've also supposedly read, and I want you to do this.

Highlight > copy > past into this thread his words that says he'll require ID cards.

The banning Muslims part is already clear-cut, because he actually SAID, we will bar Muslim immigrants until this glaringly apparent issue of radical.

He has NEVER said Muslims in the US will be required to carry ID cards. I am asking you, numb-skull, to directly quote his words, for the 5th or 6th time now.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAH. I love it. So your excuse for going so low to use propaganda was "derp I thought it was funny man it was just a joke!" I'm not buying that, and neither is anyone else in this thread.

You would have done yourself more justice by just admitting you got caught being an idiot using propaganda rather than trying to deflect. The purpose of the thread isn't to see who can post the c00l3st m3mes.

I don't even need to read the Quran in its entirety. I can simply look at the actions of the FOUNDER of your religion. The founder of your religion was a pedophile, that's historic fact. The founder of your religion for the time he was alive CONQUERED by force large areas of land. 200+ MILLION people died as a result of the Islamic conquests. And sorry, but no, Christianity is not linked to Islam. Just because you people claim Moses and Jesus as prophets doesn't make it so.

Justify the actions of the FOUNDER of Islam. Oh, sorry, you're not Muslim, I guess your fanaticism is what lead me to believe you were.

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60

If you wanted to get down to the nittygritty, although most of the polls conducted among more Western countries show a small percentage would be dubbed radical, that still constitutes a large number. More so when looking at polls conducted in places like Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, where the percent that support things like stoning, death penalty for leaving Islam, cutting off of hands, can reach as high as 70% and higher. Surprisingly, places like Lebanon (which used to be Christian) have a significantly lower percentage.

Also, obviously, the statistics for European countries, like Britain, are much higher than the US. Obviously though, since the EU nations have taken the brunt force of the Islamic immigration wave in the last couple years.

Then again, all of this is a moot point when the founder of Islam was alive during the massacre of many and the conquest of large areas of land.

So what does this mean? Limiting, or completely halting immigration from abroad will limit the potential for US citizens being killed.

You're an idealist it seems, and living in a make-believe utopia.

 

Duh i know that better than you do. You said that the prophet slaved and killed many. You don't even understand the text and 100% you didnt even read the whole thing just saw that he killed and just posted.

I was discussing about you accusing the prophet of killing many. We don't need your personal opinions we need facts, Hardcore sources that are not made by 7 year olds. Sites that are not based on theory or hate against a religion.

 

How is the Quran not a source?

 

Do you even know how to provide the source?You don't even post the link.IM just saying you could of just gotten it from "Ihateislam.com" ( Idk if it exists I'm just saying an example). Also you can sure read ill give you that but you don't understand it at all lol. If i were to say you are not religious yourself but I'm not the one to decide that not really my job. I'm just here to prove to you that what your reading and then explain the text in with your stupid thoughts is ludicrous.

 

http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=9&verse=29

7 Different translations of the Quran (Verse 9:29) in which Mohammad the false prophet commands Muslims to fight unbelievers & subjugate & force them to pay a special tax in order to not be a Muslim:

 

So you're basically denying the fact he was alive during the slaughter of many and the conquest of Islam.

You're basically attempting to rewrite history, but okay.

I can see why our country is in the hole. Please, for the sake of this nation, don't vote in this coming election.

 

superb! You can copy/paste but you don't understand them or have fully read the whole thing.

Honestly Spyder and yourself can say anything you won't I'm not stopping you anymore. I gain more respect for my religion every time you show your theory or stupid facts. You guys are so stupid that you don't even mention how radical muslims are also killing muslims. You are stuck on the fact that all muslims are bad and spyder agrees with banning all muslims from America. Bro if all muslims are bad we would all be dead? Not sure if your tiny brain can fit that sentence but its A FACT. If i were to say all white people are bad then what huh? History class bro! take it

 

I understand the command "Fight them until they submit and make them pay you". Straightforward and unambiguous violence. How you could continually defend this senseless violence, I have no idea.

Then that would be a clearly and overtly racist statement?