Donald Trump

You can't just proclaim something is "logic and common sense" without proving it first. How could you possibly consider it permissible that anyone be forced at gunpoint to pay taxes? It is theft, which is clearly immoral.

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?

 

[Logic]

It's called logic and common sense. You get taxed based on your amount of income.

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.

 

Jeb bush's tax plan is a large tax cut for the rich.

Source

Donald Trump's tax plan is a large tax cut for the rich.

Source

Marco Rubio's tax plan is a large tax cut for the rich.

Source

Ted Cruz's tax plan is a large tax cut for the rich.

Source

Ben Carson's tax plan is a large tax cut for the rich.

Source



Tell me where I said the government was made to support it's people financially. EVERYONE SHOULD BE TAXED BASED ON THEIR INCOME. The rich shouldn't receive a set tax percentage across the board that doesn't take into account the wealth they're receiving.



Says the guy who contradicts himself every time he replies with inaccurate information. :laugh:



It's called logic and common sense. You get taxed based on your amount of income.

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.

 

[Xier0]

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?

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.

 

@chechen - the point of a survey is to NOT have to survey the entire planes population under study, chief.
A survey is used to make generalizations about an entire population based on a smaller sample of said population. Stay in school, kid.

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

 

[Logic]

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.

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.

 

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.

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

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.

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

Citizens choose the level of these taxes and where they go as well as consenting to abide by majority rule if their preferred option is not selected. Taxes are no more theft than rent is extortion, by living in that location we are agreeing to abide by its rules and pay the charges. It is not theft if you receive something in return. If someone steals my car, that is theft. If I have to sell my car in order to pay my rent, that is not theft. In reality, we receive from the government protection and a commitment to justice. We also receive education, healthcare, transportation, safe food, employment protection and enforcement of contracts. There is also redistribution and welfare in the event of sickness, poverty and old age.

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.

 

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

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

 

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 don't know what a lot of things mean.
Try going outside sometimes.

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

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.

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.

 

[Xier0]

Citizens choose the level of these taxes

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.

and where they go

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!

It is not theft if you receive something in return.

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!

Taxes are no more theft than rent is extortion

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.

If someone steals my car, that is theft. If I have to sell my car in order to pay my rent, that is not theft.

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

In reality, we receive from the government protection and a commitment to justice.

What a joke.

 

[Spyder69]

BRO can you fkin not read??

I told you to go look and search " Trump Id card" "Trump ban muslims" Read the fkin articles or watch his shit.

*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.

First you idk if you missed black friday but.. You should of stayed up and got a tv.The picture is from Facebook ofc its fake I just posted it because its funny. I knew that someone who thinks like Trump wouldn't laugh because he is just as stupid as Trump.Anyways I'm sure you can search that shit up can't you or do you REALLLLLLLY want me to spoon feed your ass?

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.

Second you haven't even read the quran or understand it. Im 100% sure you won't understand shit because your not religious or have the intelligence to actually know that Islam and Christianty are linked in a way. You assuming I'm muslim and make stupid debates that you think has sense in it. Its funny honestly for someone who doesn't know what the term Islam stands for or Jihad. I just need to tell you one thing and its called being an illiterate beng.

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.

If all muslims were bad then we would all be dead lol maybe you should search the facts on this then reply back to me.

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.

 

[Wins]

This isn't about races, this is about Muslims.

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.

 

[Xier0]

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?

 

[Wins]

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.

 

[Xier0]

Do you even know how to provide the source?You don't even post the link.

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:

Sahih International: Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

Pickthall: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

Yusuf Ali: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Shakir: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Muhammad Sarwar: Fight against those People of the Book who have no faith in God or the Day of Judgment, who do not consider unlawful what God and His Messenger have made unlawful, and who do not believe in the true religion, until they humbly pay tax with their own hands.

Mohsin Khan: Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Arberry: Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden -- such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book -- until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.

 

[Spyder69]

I was discussing about you accusing the prophet of killing many.

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.

 

[Wins]

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

 

[Xier0]

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

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.

If i were to say all white people are bad then what huh?

Then that would be a clearly and overtly racist statement?