With Trump's tax situation in the news, the tax system in the US needs to be made more equitable.

The United States does not raise enough tax revenue to fund the basics for our country. Tax policies—federal and state—contribute to inequality that has been shooting higher with almost every passing year. A tiny few are walking away with an ever-larger share of the income and wealth that workers produce. Increasingly, people are left with less of what is needed to thrive, even in normal times, but particularly during a pandemic on a baking planet.

Here are some ideas:



Tax income from capital gains and stock dividends the same as income from work.
Tax our corporations’ offshore profits at least as much as we tax their U.S. profits.
End business tax breaks that are promoted as incentives for investment and job creation when there is no evidence that they accomplish this.
Explore the creative ideas being generated to make our tax code a better tool for reducing inequality and greening our economy. This might include new or expanded refundable tax credits and a carbon tax.

Carbon tax, an ugly blunt instrument and it only hurts the lower income

Tax income from capital gains and stock dividends the same as income from work.


cap gains is double taxation . but if you eliminate the corporate income tax I could go along with it .

End business tax breaks
A flat tax accomplishes this




Carbon tax, an ugly blunt instrument and it only hurts the lower income
almost all incentive taxes that are designed to socially engineer benefit the rent seekers . All you need to see is all the investment the Goracle put into carbon credits before he became an advocate for them.

End business tax breaks A flat tax accomplishes this

All that a flat tax accomplishes is a huge transfer of wealth from the lower and middle class to the richest in the land. Voodoo economics.

I don't think we can talk tax policy until we agree there has to be a proportional equity involved so the lower incomes can have a chance to thrive as the upper incomes have gorged themselves. I think closing loopholes for corporations along with regulatory restrictions on overseas profits and individual tax increases for top incomes, while more benefits for workers, both short and long term is a good formula.

For the five hundredth time. The top 20% of income earners in the U.S. pay about 85% of income taxes. The bottom 50% pay about 3%. You cannot lower taxes on lower income people since they pay no income taxes. You cannot raise an extra trillion dollars by raising taxes without burying the economy. Spending will have to be reduced. There is no other way.

For the five hundredth time. The top 20% of income earners in the U.S. pay about 85% of income taxes. The bottom 50% pay about 3%. You cannot lower taxes on lower income people since they pay no income taxes. You cannot raise an extra trillion dollars by raising taxes without burying the economy. Spending will have to be reduced. There is no other way.

same old capitalist whinge

same old capitalist whingeAlso known as the truth.

Are you a socialist now?

Also known as the truth.

Are you a socialist now?

I have never been a socialist, but then neither am I a capitalist though I spent many years in the employ of the capitalist system, no, I am just old enough to realise the short comings of both systems. I do however believe in justice which means i don't believe might and money are right. Taxation is theft, no doubt about that so if there is less of it that is a good thing so also is those who have the ability contributing since money doesn't grow on trees unless you convert fruit to drugs. I live in a society where fairness is upheld and there is a real safety net. this is achieved without excessive taxation

The average tax rate in Aussie land is 45% and has been for years. I'm glad to find out that you don't consider that to be excessive since it will have to go up if we do the smart thing and reduce our military footprint around the world, thus forcing nations like yours to have to genuinely fund their own military defense.

There is a real safety net here as well. It is so real that people routinely take advantage of it.

The average tax rate in Aussie land is 45% and has been for years. I'm glad to find out that you don't consider that to be excessive since it will have to go up if we do the smart thing and reduce our military footprint around the world, thus forcing nations like yours to have to genuinely fund their own military defense.

There is a real safety net here as well. It is so real that people routinely take advantage of it.

you are misinformed I haven't paid tax in years, noone with an income under $18,000 pays tax and superannuation isn't counted, unless you are a high earner the rate is 32.5% so there must be some high flyers pushing up the average and the maximum they pay is 45%. We don't have that state tax B/S either. All my medical is free unless I choose to go to a private hospital



0 – $18,200
Nil


$18,201 – $37,000
19c for each $1 over $18,200


$37,001 – $90,000
$3,572 plus 32.5c for each $1 over $37,000


$90,001 – $180,000
$20,797 plus 37c for each $1 over $90,000


$180,001 and over
$54,097 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000


https://qsuper.qld.gov.au/-/media/Images/SuperScoop/Articles/1806-June/what_did_pay_infographic.jpg
contrast this with your own tax statistics
You are really into this military funding B/S but we don't need to buy anymore yankee weapons and put money in your pocket so take that Trump lie and put it where the sun don't shine. I don't mind if you are less confrontational

I haven't paid tax in years,Well no wonder you like your tax structure. How noble of you to brag about how much others are forced to pay in taxes while you do nothing at all. Now maybe I am not remembering this accurately, but I think you have said months ago that you are the head of several companies. And for that you get paid 18K annually?

Your top bracket is indeed 45%.

Military funding BS?? You keep missing the point. I am all for letting perfectly able countries like yours do their own defending. I don't care where you buy your weapons from, but I do care that we not go bankrupt trying to defend nations like yours who, if you are a representative sample, seem to have no appreciation at all for what is done for them.

We haven't defended anybody in a long time, but the cooperation levels I think were higher before the dufus started his loud badmouth campaign about money. It was in our interest to have a force that could go everywhere in the world if needed, maybe not so much now but you never know, but regardless as much as we puff ourselves up and look down on the rest of the world we are finding out the hard way our stuff needs more work in so many areas, I don't think we should be running our mouths over what we got that others don't have.

Arrogance ain't good.

but the cooperation levels I think were higher before the dufus started his loud badmouth campaign about money.In your world, everything is Trump's fault.


We haven't defended anybody in a long time.I think our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq would be surprised to find that out. We have troops in 177 countries around the world. I would think that is far, far too many.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-military-personnel-deployments-country/

In your world, everything is Trump's fault.

No not everything just the boorish stupid unnecessary antics.


I think our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq would be surprised to find that out. We have troops in 177 countries around the world. I would think that is far, far too many.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-military-personnel-deployments-country/

Somebody here deemed it strategically necessary so here we are. Wars conflicts and skirmishes is what we do to HELP whether people can afford it or not. We could just let terrorists and anarchist run roughshod through defenseless populations and save money I suppose.

In your world, everything is Trump's fault.

I think our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq would be surprised to find that out. We have troops in 177 countries around the world. I would think that is far, far too many.


Yes far too many aside from embassy defence none of them should be there and that includes Afghanistan and include our own troops in the remark

Wars conflicts and skirmishes is what we do to HELP whether people can afford it or not.The point is that WE cannot afford it.


We could just let terrorists and anarchist run roughshod through defenseless populations and save money I supposeOr we could begin to expect these other nations to spend a comparable amount of their GDP on defense and then they could defend themselves. That's why I don't so much mind helping countries like Israel and S. Korea. We are at 3.4%, Israel at 5.3%, S. Korea at 2.7%, and then there's Australia at 1.9%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Well no wonder you like your tax structure. How noble of you to brag about how much others are forced to pay in taxes while you do nothing at all. Now maybe I am not remembering this accurately, but I think you have said months ago that you are the head of several companies. And for that you get paid 18K annually?
once again you are misinformed, many years ago I did rise to be CEO of an energy utility and in my career held various executive positions in various corporations and now I am old, a fossil to some, and my income is no longer what it once was


Your top bracket is indeed 45%. ducking again you said it was the average rate, the average rate is nothing like 45%. Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the term average


Military funding BS?? You keep missing the point. I am all for letting perfectly able countries like yours do their own defending. I don't care where you buy your weapons from, but I do care that we not go bankrupt trying to defend nations like yours who, if you are a representative sample, seem to have no appreciation at all for what is done for them.

You keep missing the point, you think we should be beholding to you because you "generously" project your power for your own purposes. Long ago you fought a war and we fought beside you, but we no longer want to fight endless wars. You want to dictate how much we should spend on defence, but we don't need a standing army of a million

So you are a retired CEO and you make less than 18K annually? Thank goodness for that generous Aussie safety net!! I would ask what happened, but it's really none of my business.


ducking again you said it was the average rate, the average rate is nothing like 45%. Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the term averageYour point is well taken. I misstated the facts. However, it is still true that your tax rate is above ours.


You keep missing the point, you think we should be beholding to you because you "generously" project your power for your own purposes. Long ago you fought a war and we fought beside you, but we no longer want to fight endless wars. You want to dictate how much we should spend on defence, but we don't need a standing army of a million.No. Actually I want to just cut you guys loose and let you take care of yourselves. Either that, or you can surrender to China and become China South. That will be up to you. Don't want to fight? Fine with me. I don't want to dictate anything to you. I just want to cut your little country loose until the time comes when people like you become just a tiny bit thankful and get some small amount of understanding of what we do in this world. We sure don't need to bankrupt ourselves spending money to defend people who don't want to pay the price of defending themselves.

So you want to make your own decisions? Fine with me. Just do it on your own dime.

So you are a retired CEO and you make less than 18K annually? Thank goodness for that generous Aussie safety net!! I would ask what happened, but it's really none of my business.

You don't listen or perhaps you don't understand. I said that superannuation income wasn't taxed


Your point is well taken. I misstated the facts. However, it is still true that your tax rate is above ours. yes and some of your individual tax provisions are more generous but you pay for it in other ways, It seems our tax rate is about to be reduced further in response to CV19 economic woos


No. Actually I want to just cut you guys loose and let you take care of yourselves. Either that, or you can surrender to China and become China South. That will be up to you. Don't want to fight? Fine with me. I don't want to dictate anything to you. I just want to cut your little country loose until the time comes when people like you become just a tiny bit thankful and get some small amount of understanding of what we do in this world. We sure don't need to bankrupt ourselves spending money to defend people who don't want to pay the price of defending themselves.
you have never needed to bankrupt yourselves defending us, more likely the opposite, but you are not thankful for the support you receive from those who truly can't afford it. You think our 1.9% is too small but maybe we get more bang for our buck, no $12,000 hammers and such like. Perhaps if we compared on a per capita basis You spend $2,000 per capita we spend $1,000, you have a military of 2 million and many aircraft carriers we don't. If we had many aircraft carriers we would have to spend more


So you want to make your own decisions? Fine with me. Just do it on your own dime.

so generous of you after you insist we spend more on the military

You don't listen or perhaps you don't understand. I said that superannuation income wasn't taxedOh!! So you're living on a fat pension and not having to pay taxes on it? Well no wonder you love the Aussie tax plan. You get the benefits without the costs.

Can you not understand? I don't really care what your country does. I care about what our country does, and I'd like to see us shrink our military and tell other countries, including yours, that if they want a defense alliance with us, they need to get off their duffs and provide for their own defense.

And for hopefully the last time, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU SPEND ON YOUR MILITARY! I just care about what we spend on our military. Insisting? Not at all. It's like I said. You can become South China if you want to. Spend zero if you want to. Just don't call on us for help.

What an outrageous right wing rant. Having a foreign base is an asset for us that belies the dollar shortfall.

yes tal there is no middle ground with jl, what he doesn't realise is that many consider the US military expenditure excessive but when you are in the grip of the military industrial complex how else are you going to spend your money? Instead of berating us for maintaining an appropriate military which, after all, is a defense not offense force he should focus on real issues like US underspending on health

What an outrageous right wing rant. Having a foreign base is an asset for us that belies the dollar shortfall.Anything you don't understand automatically becomes a "right wing rant".

Clete, as usual, sitting thousands of miles away, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Anything you don't understand automatically becomes a "right wing rant".

Clete, as usual, sitting thousands of miles away, you have no idea what you're talking about.

No, Jl, living thousands of miles away means I can view matters with a perspective not apparent to those sitting on top of the problem

Now if you can just start having a little knowledge, you'll be dangerous.

Anything you don't understand automatically becomes a "right wing rant".

The right wing has been ranting the same things you have for a long time so nothing to understand. That's what you do.

For the five hundredth time. The top 20% of income earners in the U.S. pay about 85% of income taxes. The bottom 50% pay about 3%.

This is a classic example of how to lie with statistics. It's shameless but effective propaganda, which is why the right wing spreads it widely.

First, these numbers refer only to federal income taxes. The income tax is not the only tax collected by the federal government. There are several others including excise tax, inheritance tax, and the payroll tax. About a third come from payroll taxes which fall much more heavily on working people since they are collected only on the first $130,000 of earned income.

This means the rich pay a far lower tax rate than ordinary people. A $50,000 a year salary pays (counting both the employee and employer side) 12.4 per cent in OASDI taxes – Social Security and disability insurance. But a very wealthy person making a thousand times that or $50 million a year pays only on the initial $130,000 income which comes to an OASDI rate of 0.03 per cent. Since these taxes are only on earned income, a billionaire receiving $50 million for dividends and capital gains pays ZERO per cent.

There are also many state and local taxes. State income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and more. Some of these – sales taxes – are actually regressive. Since these are flat taxes, they take a higher percentage of income from the poor than the rich. The lower-income you are the higher the tax rate you pay compared to the higher-income.

The wealthy naturally pay a disproportionate share of federal income taxes because they make a disproportionate share of the nation's income. To some degree, this demonstrates precisely the opposite of what the propagandists claim. They're hardly an indication that the rich are paying more than their share, but are a sign of America's staggering wealth inequality.

The top 1% have annual income (average about $2 million) that is about 140 times greater than the bottom 20% (average about $14,000). Yet, the bottom 20 pay 22.2% of ALL taxes paid and the top 1% pay 33.7% of ALL taxes paid. This equals a whopping 60% paid by the bottom compared to the top. In other words, for every dollar the top 1% pay in taxes, the bottom 20% pay SIXTY CENTS! For every dollar of income to the top 1%, the bottom 20% receive less than ONE PENNY! Hardly tax justice.

Isolating federal income tax from all taxes to show a false picture is not the way to Tax Justice.

First, these numbers refer only to federal income taxes.No one has said otherwise. I was responding to a comment made to the effect that federal income tax policies were supposedly being slanted to favor the rich.


inheritance tax, and the payroll taxWho do you think pays inheritance taxes, welfare recipients? As to the payroll tax, it is one that the wealthy are forced to pay when they really don't need it, so your point is still unsupported.


A $50,000 a year salary pays (counting both the employee and employer side) 12.4 per cent in OASDI taxes – Social Security and disability insurance. But a very wealthy person making a thousand times that or $50 million a year pays only on the initial $130,000 income which comes to an OASDI rate of 0.03 per cent.Thank you for making my point for me. The wealthy man in your example will pay nearly 3X more in payroll taxes since he is paying in on nearly 3X greater income base. And that is really not a tax as much as it is a state managed retirement program. You pay in, and then you get to take out. So your point STILL unsupported.

As to the other taxes you mentioned, the wealthy pay much more in sales taxes and property taxes than do lower income people since they spend much more and they own much more valuable properties.


The top 1% have annual income (average about $2 million) that is about 140 times greater than the bottom 20% (average about $14,000). Yet, the bottom 20 pay 22.2% of ALL taxes paid and the top 1% pay 33.7% of ALL taxes paid. This equals a whopping 60% paid by the bottom compared to the top. In other words, for every dollar the top 1% pay in taxes, the bottom 20% pay SIXTY CENTS! For every dollar of income to the top 1%, the bottom 20% receive less than ONE PENNY! Hardly tax justice.Where is your documentation for this? I'd just like to take a look at it, but right away I can see that part of the issue is simply due to numbers. You are comparing the bottom 20% to the top 1% which is automatically dishonest since the bottom 20% will have something on the order of 2,000% more people in it. I want to see how it looks when we compare the bottom 20% to the top 20% which is how it should be done. Otherwise, you are comparing a very large number of people to a very small number of people.

The approach of liberals is to penalize the wealthy in order to help poor people, a group which the average liberal does nothing for on a personal basis. Tax policy allows liberal people to feel morally superior on the basis of having such great concern for poor people that they are willing to force other people to help them.

If you want to help poor people, then let's all join together in calling for the re-establishment of the two parent family and a complete reworking of the educational system to give poor kids a shot at a good education.

Now if you can just start having a little knowledge, you'll be dangerous.

The same can be said of you

Might want to try an original statement at some point, but I do appreciate the compliment of being copied.

Just reflecting or is it deflecting

I was responding to a comment made to the effect that federal income tax policies were supposedly being slanted to favor the rich.

They do favor the rich. Keep reading.


The wealthy man in your example will pay nearly 3X more in payroll taxes since he is paying in on nearly 3X greater income base.

You misread the example. Whether 3X, 5X or 10X, the payroll tax has a ceiling which results in lower income paying a much larger percentage of income than the wealthy man.


And that is really not a tax as much as it is a state managed retirement program.

No, it IS a tax. No one denies that.


As to the other taxes you mentioned, the wealthy pay much more in sales taxes and property taxes than do lower income people since they spend much more and they own much more valuable properties.

The rate is the same resulting in the lower income paying a substantially higher percentage of their income while the rich pay a much smaller amount of their income. It's becoming apparent you are not understanding the effect of regressive taxes on the incomes of the poor and the rich.


Where is your documentation for this?

https://itep.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2019/

See the chart at the bottom of the article.


I'd just like to take a look at it, but right away I can see that part of the issue is simply due to numbers. You are comparing the bottom 20% to the top 1% which is automatically dishonest since the bottom 20% will have something on the order of 2,000% more people in it. I want to see how it looks when we compare the bottom 20% to the top 20% which is how it should be done. Otherwise, you are comparing a very large number of people to a very small number of people.

This argument is meaningless. See the chart where all 5 quintiles are compared. Your comment about a disparity in numbers between the wealthy and the low income is a proof of the unfairness of the tax system.


The approach of liberals is to penalize the wealthy in order to help poor people, a group which the average liberal does nothing for on a personal basis. Tax policy allows liberal people to feel morally superior on the basis of having such great concern for poor people that they are willing to force other people to help them.

Where is your documentation?


If you want to help poor people, then let's all join together in calling for the re-establishment of the two parent family and a complete reworking of the educational system to give poor kids a shot at a good education.

There is much that can be done for poor people. Tax Justice is a major step in that direction since it reveals the basic unfairness of the tax system and that it needs to be corrected for it to be fair to everybody.

When the poor have their just share of the fruits of the society which they have made a major role in creating, many of the problems will disappear. Then liberal and conservative can work on what's left - problems of both rich and poor - to form a more perfect union.

T



This argument is meaningless. See the chart where all 5 quintiles are compared. Your comment about a disparity in numbers between the wealthy and the low income is a proof of the unfairness of the tax system.


Athos, logic is lost on someone like Jl, he has a religious belief in pelican rhetoric




There is much that can be done for poor people. Tax Justice is a major step in that direction since it reveals the basic unfairness of the tax system and that it needs to be corrected for it to be fair to everybody.

When the poor have their just share of the fruits of the society which they have made a major role in creating, many of the problems will disappear. Then liberal and conservative can work on what's left - problems of both rich and poor - to form a more perfect union.

Jl believes that the truth that the poor are always with us is an invitation to ignore them but Jesus also told the rich to give to the poor and that 2,000 year old injunction tell us much about the condition of the human heart. All taxation is unfair but as you say, the impact is greater on the poor, something that JL ignores. This is an imperfect society where greed rules, in some places its impact are greater than in others but nowhere is the impact more obvious in the divide between rich and poor than in a society that doesn't recognise its flaws

You misread the example. Whether 3X, 5X or 10X, the payroll tax has a ceiling which results in lower income paying a much larger percentage of income than the wealthy man.You don't understand Social Security. It is not one of your beloved welfare programs. It is a retirement program. People are paying in to provide for their own, individual retirement. The fact that the wealthy have to pay in at all is a negative for them since they have no need for SS income.


The rate is the same resulting in the lower income paying a substantially higher percentage of their income while the rich pay a much smaller amount of their income. It's becoming apparent you are not understanding the effect of regressive taxes on the incomes of the poor and the rich.It's becoming apparent that you don't understand simple math. When a wealthy person pays in 20X more in property tax than a poor person does, that means he has paid in 20X more money. It is not necessarily true that it represents a smaller percentage of that person's income.


This argument is meaningless. See the chart where all 5 quintiles are compared. Your comment about a disparity in numbers between the wealthy and the low income is a proof of the unfairness of the tax system.The numbers reference was your comparison of the top 1% to the bottom 20%. Might want to add that even your charts show that the top income earners pay a higher percentage of income tax than they earn income.


There is much that can be done for poor people. Tax Justice is a major step in that direction since it reveals the basic unfairness of the tax system and that it needs to be corrected for it to be fair to everybody. When the poor have their just share of the fruits of the society which they have made a major role in creating, many of the problems will disappear. Then liberal and conservative can work on what's left - problems of both rich and poor - to form a more perfect union.You can call for tax justice all you want, but it cannot come in fed income tax where the top 20% pay more than 85% of taxes while the lower 50% pay 3% or so. It cannot come in inheritance taxes for obvious reasons. Property and sales taxes are not the responsibility of the feds, so you'll have to work on the state level on that.

As to how to help the poor, my two suggestions are the way to go. Our state sales tax is 7%. If you cut that in half, it would mean a few hundred dollars a year extra for the poor. That does not solve the problem. The problem is centered in family structure and educational results. It is much better to help poor people develop solid incomes than it is to simply force others to give them money. It has to do with self respect.


Jl believes that the truth that the poor are always with us is an invitation to ignore them but Jesus also told the rich to give to the poor and that 2,000 year old injunction tell us much about the condition of the human heartFirst of all, you are lying again in trying to describe what I believe. I have never, ever suggested to ignore the poor, so your description is not accurate and completely stupid. Secondly, Jesus never commanded the government to force wealthy people (or anyone else) to give money to the government for poor people. That idea is found nowhere in the Bible.

You don't understand Social Security. It is not one of your beloved welfare programs. It is a retirement program. People are paying in to provide for their own, individual retirement. The fact that the wealthy have to pay in at all is a negative for them since they have no need for SS income.


a spirious response, noone knows whether they will have wealth when it comes time to retire, to presume that because you are wealthy at some point things will always be that way is rediculous


It's becoming apparent that you don't understand simple math. When a wealthy person pays in 20X more in property tax than a poor person does, that means he has paid in 20X more money. It is not necessarily true that it represents a smaller percentage of that person's income.

or a larger percentage again a spirious argument


The numbers reference was your comparison of the top 1% to the bottom 20%. Might want to add that even your charts show that the top income earners pay a higher percentage of income tax than they earn income.

You can call for tax justice all you want, but it cannot come in fed income tax where the top 20% pay more than 85% of taxes while the lower 50% pay 3% or so. It cannot come in inheritance taxes for obvious reasons. Property and sales taxes are not the responsibility of the feds, so you'll have to work on the state level on that.

The tax system is exactly that, a system. Where I come from we have a saying; the idea is extract the most wool with the minimum of bleeting. Who bleets the most, the rich, the poor just grin and bear it because they have no choice


As to how to help the poor, my two suggestions are the way to go. Our state sales tax is 7%. If you cut that in half, it would mean a few hundred dollars a year extra for the poor. That does not solve the problem. The problem is centered in family structure and educational results.

So the nub of it is poor people make themselves poor


First of all, you are lying again in trying to describe what I believe. I have never, ever suggested to ignore the poor, so your description is not accurate and completely stupid. Secondly, Jesus never commanded the government to force wealthy people (or anyone else) to give money to the government for poor people. That idea is found nowhere in the Bible.

I don't tell lies, I express an opinion. My opinion differs from yours, this is obvious, but you reflect a certain opinion which suggests the poor should be taxed more so the rich can be taxed less. You have twisted my statement, I too could call it a lie, but I will be generous. My reference was to the rich man who would not give up his riches even to walk with Jesus. Jesus made only one pertinent reference to government and taxes, and he said nothing about bleeting about the quantum

Jlisenbe: First of all, you are lying again in trying to describe what I believe

(The above quote from Jl was directed at Paraclete.)

Paraclete has answered your reply as well as anyone, so I won't repeat what he so effectively said. Calling him a liar does not help your case at all. It just lessens whatever limited credibility you may have had. WG has warned you many times about that nasty habit of yours but you don't seem able to control it.

Some of your comments were so weird, I'll note them here.


You don't understand Social Security. It is not one of your beloved welfare programs.

The reader can see this and make his own decision about your inaccurate and mean-spirited reply. You did not address the point that was made. When in doubt, insult is not a replacement for a rational disagreement which you don't possess.


The numbers reference was your comparison of the top 1% to the bottom 20%. Might want to add that even your charts show that the top income earners pay a higher percentage of income tax than they earn income.

No one is denying there is a progressive income tax. Otherwise, your thought is muddled. You might want to rephrase it so your meaning gets un-muddled.


It is much better to help poor people develop solid incomes

That is the first clear thing you've said. If you truly agree with helping poor people develop solid incomes, then you should be on the side of Tax Justice. That would go a long way to fairly balancing taxes that help the poor develop solid incomes.


Jesus never commanded the government to force wealthy people (or anyone else) to give money to the government for poor people. That idea is found nowhere in the bible.

What an incredibly disgraceful way to characterize the words of Jesus. Jesus' commandment was about loving the poor expressed in parables. How that is done, he left to the people. The best way economically is a fair tax system.

Your statement that the idea is found nowhere in the Bible is too preposterous to address.

I don't know why we bother refuting his ridiculous arguments, as I said earlier he has a religious pelican belief, what that means is the pelican is a bird whose beak holds more than his belly can, He obviously believes the rich should keep what they catch, so arguing that taxing the rich more than the poor is ridiculous, as ridiculous as the idea of a flat rate income tax. What does work is a flat rate consumption tax but again Jl would complain the rich pay more than the poor

Calling him a liar does not help your case at all. It just lessens whatever limited credibility you may have had. WG has warned you many times about that nasty habit of yours but you don't seem able to control it.I did not call him a liar. I said he was lying because...he was lying. WG doesn't get to tell me not to be honest with people.

There is so much to respond to, I'll try and make it simple.

1. Don't know what a "spirious" response is. I suppose you meant "spurious". To force a wealthy person to contribute to a retirement program he would otherwise not choose to contribute to is hardly spurious.

2. Tell me why I shouldn't think that you find the Aussie system to be great because it does not require you to contribute so much as a penny. Am I wrong in thinking that?

3. When you say that I believe we should ignore the poor, you are lying. That is a fact. You would be much better served to own up to your mistake. If you had done that, then perhaps you were just over-exuberant in expressing your "opinion". That you won't do that raises eyebrows.

4. Some poor people make good decisions and become better off and even wealthy such as Dr. Carson. Some poor people make bad decisions and stay poor. We should encourage everyone to make good decisions. I would think that would be the most startlingly obvious truth imaginable.

5. My comment on Social Security was entirely accurate. You sometimes confuse inaccuracy with you disliking the truth.

6. My comment about what Jesus said was 100% accurate. He never commanded the government to operate a welfare system. As to what the Bible says, if you know how to refute what I said, then do it. Otherwise, it certainly appears to be the complaining of a man who knows he has no answers.

7. Clete, if you can refute an argument, then have at it. I haven't seen that you can. The rich are taxed more than the poor. It is a fact. I have not complained about that. I have presented that as clear, objective evidence that our income tax system does not favor the rich as others have suggested.

8. A flat rate consumption tax is something I would consider. Most of the flat rate income tax plans I have seen have provisions built in to protect the poor. They have the enormous benefit of not allowing the wealthy to pay no taxes at all as all of you constantly complain about, as well you should. That was, by the way, the "tax policy" of the Old Testament. However it's done, my major concerns are to have a balanced budget and not destroy the economy in the process.

9. The most disgusting comment a person can make is this. "His arguments are too foolish to refute." I have found that people who have no answers love to say that to cover up their lack of knowledge. I think your real problem is that you simply don't like the truth, but if you have good answers, then bring them forward. I would suggest you abandon the "too foolish to refute" approach. You are fooling no one other than, perhaps, yourselves.

To force a wealthy person to contribute to a retirement program he would otherwise not choose to contribute to is hardly spurious. Going to get worse . They plan on means testing distributions


My comment about what Jesus said was 100% accurate. He never commanded the government to operate a welfare system. That is accurate . If anything the rule of law was the primary function of government mentioned in the Bible ..

I did not call him a liar. I said he was lying because...he was lying. WG doesn't get to tell me not to be honest with people.

There is so much to respond to, I'll try and make it simple.

1. Don't know what a "spirious" response is. I suppose you meant "spurious". To force a wealthy person to contribute to a retirement program he would otherwise not choose to contribute to is hardly spurious.

It is spirious because as I said you cannot know whether you will need it or not. Why do I need to repeat myself


2. Tell me why I shouldn't think that you find the Aussie system to be great because it does not require you to contribute so much as a penny. Am I wrong in thinking that?

yes our system is somewhat more evolved than yours and much simpler. It recognises that people who save for retirement shouldn't be taxed twice. It also recognises that people with little income should be allowed to keep that income


3. When you say that I believe we should ignore the poor, you are lying. That is a fact. You would be much better served to own up to your mistake. If you had done that, then perhaps you were just over-exuberant in expressing your "opinion". That you won't do that raises eyebrows.

4. Some poor people make good decisions and become better off and even wealthy such as Dr. Carson. Some poor people make bad decisions and stay poor. We should encourage everyone to make good decisions. I would think that would be the most startlingly obvious truth imaginable.

Yes encourage people to make good decisions so don't use the blunt instrument of taxation to keep them down and politicians making millions


My comment on Social Security was entirely accurate. You sometimes confuse inaccuracy with you disliking the truth.

another spirious comment, your idea of Social security is aponzie scheme

6.
My comment about what Jesus said was 100% accurate. He never commanded the government to operate a welfare system. As to what the Bible says, if you know how to refute what I said, then do it. Otherwise, it certainly appears to be the complaining of a man who knows he has no answers.

Obviously you don't understand old testament Israel, their welfare system was imbedded. Why would he give instructions about what already existed


7. Clete, if you can refute an argument, then have at it. I haven't seen that you can. The rich are taxed more than the poor. It is a fact. I have not complained about that. I have presented that as clear, objective evidence that our income tax system does not favor the rich as others have suggested.

all you have presented are statistics. You haven't addressed what proportion of national assets these rich own and how they got to own it, obvious taxation didn't stop them

8.
A flat rate consumption tax is something I would consider. Most of the flat rate income tax plans I have seen have provisions built in to protect the poor. They have the enormous benefit of not allowing the wealthy to pay no taxes at all as all of you constantly complain about, as well you should. That was, by the way, the "tax policy" of the Old Testament. However it's done, my major concerns are to have a balanced budget and not destroy the economy in the process.

we implemented it without destroying the economy, in fact the economy grew and income tax has reduced, of course, a few sacred cows had to be slaughtered in the process

9.
The most disgusting comment a person can make is this. "His arguments are too foolish to refute." I have found that people who have no answers love to say that to cover up their lack of knowledge. I think your real problem is that you simply don't like the truth, but if you have good answers, then bring them forward. I would suggest you abandon the "too foolish to refute" approach. You are fooling no one other than, perhaps, yourselves.

what is truth, sadly it is too often in the eye of the beholder

The issue of Social Sec was not spurious for the simple reason it should be his choice and not yours. Freedom.

My idea of SS is the way the program is actually set up. It is absolutely a pay as you go system. Anyone familiar with it knows that.

Give me scripture about that "imbedded" welfare system. You will find it did not involve taking from the rich and just handing money to the poor. You are mistaken.

All I have presented are statistics? You mean data, otherwise known as facts? And you complain about that?

I'm not sure what you meant in your comment about your tax system. Do you mean you have a flat rate consumption tax AND income taxes?


what is truth, sadly it is too often in the eye of the beholderThat is absolutely, positively NOT true. In fact, it is the definition of "opinion" and not of truth. Truth is constant. It does not rest at all on the "eye of the beholder". It rests on objectivity, not subjectivity.


Going to get worse . They plan on means testing distributionsThat does seem to be the case. It will become more and more of a welfare program as time goes along if we are not careful.

I'm not sure what you meant in your comment about your tax system. Do you mean you have a flat rate consumption tax AND income taxes?



Let me explain it we have what we call a goods and services tax 10% which applies to all processed goods and services, and is paid by the end user. to implement this sales tax was removed as was a duty on financial transactions, this funds the states so there are no state income or sales taxes. There are no death duties. What you call social security was originally a seperate tax that was rolled into the general rate of tax, there is a Medicare levy which allegedly funds health care, but is not paid by those with health insurance and there is income tax. Dividends are not taxed. Contributions to superannuation are taxed at 15% and are deductable. Capital profits are only taxed on realisation and at reduced rates. All of this is achieved without large budget deficits

All of this is achieved without large budget deficitsI commend you for having budget deficits less significant than ours, but I hope you realize that it is still very decidedly not a good thing.


goods and services tax 10% which applies to all processed goods and services, and is paid by the end user.Four questions.
1. In what way is that different from a sales tax?
2. So this is paid only by the last person in the string of purchasers? In other words, it is assessed only once?
3. Why wouldn't that be considered to be a very much regressive tax which consumes a far greater percentage of a poor person's income in the same way that a sales tax does?
4. Is it assessed on all purchases including such things as new homes, med care, automobiles, gasoline, or dental care?

I still hope you will reply to this. "Give me scripture about that "imbedded" welfare system. You will find it did not involve taking from the rich and just handing money to the poor."

value added taxes would work if you replace other taxes ie income taxes.


In other words, it is assessed only once? no it multiplies along the trail from producer to consumer . Now we already pay some Federal consumption taxes .But the bulk of our consumption taxes go to State and local . But like the God Father ,the libs in the Federal government want to dip their beaks in too. And of course as I frequently point out ,businesses don't pay taxes . Taxes get passed on to "the last person in the string of purchasers".

He was referring to how it was practiced in Australia. He said, "and is paid by the end user." That sounds like it is assessed only once by the final purchaser. If it accumulates along the way, then it has the potential to become really large.

yeah I looked it up before my comment . It is a 10% VAT that replaces their old sales tax .

That being the case, I would think it would result in significantly higher prices. Correct?

theoretically . What also happened is that it depressed purchasing at least temporarily . There was also a spike in purchasing in the days before it was passed. This was done by the Howard Government . The reason it was not catastrophic was because income taxes were reduced . The system is convoluted IMO
Businesses have to collect the GST and have to pay when they make a purchase . THEN they have to file to get a credit . Sounds like bureaucratic job security to me .

theoretically . What also happened is that it depressed purchasing at least temporarily . There was also a spike in purchasing in the days before it was passed. This was done by the Howard Government . The reason it was not catastrophic was because income taxes were reduced . The system is convoluted IMO
Businesses have to collect the GST and have to pay when they make a purchase . THEN they have to file to get a credit . Sounds like bureaucratic job security to me .

It works so businesses collect the tax and deduct the tax paid and they can file once a year, there are some services it doesn't apply to, medical for example and small business and small charities are exempt. What it does is tax the black economy and receipts were much larger than anticipated. I know businesses that closed up overnight on implementation, they were obviously tax cheats but we had years of no recession and economic growth and income tax reductions

And we have had years of extraction and redistribution to the wealthy amid policy that excludes half the population. Legalized stealing is my term.

And we have had years of extraction and redistribution to the wealthy amid policy that excludes half the population. Legalized stealing is my term.The welfare system works exactly the other way. We take from the "wealthy" and give to the poor. Not sure what you're talking about in the way of "legalized stealing".

The welfare system works exactly the other way. We take from the "wealthy" and give to the poor. Not sure what you're talking about in the way of "legalized stealing".

Nothing is taken from the wealthy. That's capitalist propaganda thousands of years old. Always aided and abetted through corruption their wealth has facilitated. Law makers have always been a cheap easy commodity.

For the five hundred and first time, the top 20% of income earners pay 85% of the fed income tax. They pay most of the inheritance tax as well. So in what way is "Nothing taken from the wealthy"? I'm pretty sure they don't feel that way. I'm absolutely certain your statement is wildly wrong.

Nothing is taken from the wealthy. That's capitalist propaganda thousands of years old. Always aided and abetted through corruption their wealth has facilitated. Law makers have always been a cheap easy commodity.

The fruits of labor have always been redistributed from the poor to the rich. The income tax argument of the rich has been answered but to no avail. That's not surprising since the rich determine (brainwash) how economics are perceived.

That is truer than ever as the rich are gaining during the pandemic as the poor sink deeper and deeper.

The fruits of labor have always been redistributed from the poor to the rich.Not by the government, and not in a compulsory fashion. But at least you have come down somewhat on the side of truth as opposed to Tal asserting that money is not taken from the wealthy to give to the poor.


The income tax argument of the rich has been answered but to no avail. That's not surprising since the rich determine (brainwash) how economics are perceived.It has been to no avail because no amount of fussing and complaining can hide the fact that the wealthy pay nearly all of the fed income tax and certainly most of the inheritance tax. That absolute truth was used to counter Tal's statement that, "Nothing is taken from the wealthy." It is plainly untrue.

What you pointed to were sales taxes and prop taxes. I pointed out that those were state issues. That's why your statement was, "to no avail".

What you pointed to were sales taxes and prop taxes. I pointed out that those were state issues. That's why your statement was, "to no avail".

No, I pointed to all taxes from every source - federal, state and local. That was made very clear including charts proving the point.

I didn't suggest otherwise. However, the taxes which you said put an unfair burden on the poor were sales and prop taxes. Those are largely the responsibility of state and local governments. As to income, inheritance, and payroll taxes, (though the payroll tax is not really a tax in the same manner as the other two), I pointed out that those are much more of a burden on the wealthy than on the poor.

No they ain't. Consider all them taxes that burden the wealthy they still have bookoo bucks left and can write all kinds of checks to politicians that are trying to get elected.

No they ain't. Consider all them taxes that burden the wealthy they still have bookoo bucks left Tal, until you can show me data that demonstrates otherwise, I'm going to stick with the most obvious, plain truth on the planet and it's this. The wealthy pay FAR, FAR more into fed taxes than any other group.

The wealthy pay FAR, FAR more into fed taxes than any other group.

You still don't get it.

A rich man earns $1,000,000 and pays $200,000 in taxes. Another man earns $50,000 and pays $10,000 in taxes. The rich man is left with $800,000 and the other man is left with $40,000. You can live quite a bit more comfortably on $800,000 than you can on $40,000. that's Tal's "bookoo bucks left".

they both pay 20% that doesn't seem fair. Your point is well made the rich man has little to complain of, he has been dealt with fairly, the other is left in difficulty. What Jl fails to realise is there are many rich people who make up his statistic but he complains as if there are only a few billionaires contributing when the opposite is true, take Trump as an example

To suggest they both pay 20% is ridiculous. It's not true and he knows it. There is no scenario where the person with 50K will be able to live a lifestyle similar to a millionaire. It's the very reason people so frequently want to become rich.


What Jl fails to realise is there are many rich people who make up his statistic but he complains as if there are only a few billionaires contributing when the opposite is true, take Trump as an exampleIt would be so nice if you would stop assuming you know what I think and just go on what I have said. I have said no part of your silly conjecture above. The top 20% of income earners start at something like a quarter million in income.

Tal, until you can show me data that demonstrates otherwise, I'm going to stick with the most obvious, plain truth on the planet and it's this. The wealthy pay FAR, FAR more into fed taxes than any other group.

Can't argue with that logic.

To suggest they both pay 20% is ridiculous. It's not true and he knows it. There is no scenario where the person with 50K will be able to live a lifestyle similar to a millionaire. It's the very reason people so frequently want to become rich.

It would be so nice if you would stop assuming you know what I think and just go on what I have said. I have said no part of your silly conjecture above. The top 20% of income earners start at something like a quarter million in income.

No just pointing out the example is flawed and I don't have time to assess the income of both. Again with the spirious argument no one with a $50K income expects to live like a millionaire.

I can only take your arguments at face value as a reflection of your thoughts but you seem to get upset whenever you are called on your attitudes. I'm glad you recognise that the top 20% have exceptional incomes whereas the bottom 80% can't expect to live like millionaires. So Jl, why do you defend the top earners so vigourously, why don't you focus on lifting the 80% so they can contribute more?

No just pointing out the example is flawed

I don't agree the example is flawed. I could have used a lower tax rate for the poorer man which would have made the disparity even greater. But I used a flat tax to show the disparity. Either method makes the point.

examples, are used for argument this is true, equally true is the disparity without the tax. I agree with you that continually pointing out that the rich pay more tax is flogging a dead horse, if you lower the tax rate it will still be true since it is a perfect example of the pareto principle but perhaps JL has not been introduced to this principle

I can only take your arguments at face valueI wish you would. Making it up as you go along is not working well.


I'm glad you recognise that the top 20% have exceptional incomes whereas the bottom 80% can't expect to live like millionaires.You don't say?


why don't you focus on lifting the 80% so they can contribute more?
I am engaged in doing that very thing every week and did so for most of my adult life. How about you?


So Jl, why do you defend the top earners so vigourously, why don't you focus on lifting the 80% so they can contribute more?For the listening/understanding impaired here, I will say again that I am defending no one. The argument was put forward many posts ago that tax laws are designed for the benefit of the wealthy. I have shown that when the top 20% of income earners pay 85% of fed income tax, then saying the wealthy created the tax laws becomes an exercise in silliness. Perhaps you have now grasped that very, very, very simple truth. It is in no way a defense of the wealthy.

Athos, using a flat tax in your scenario seems a strange thing to do when we plainly don't have a flat tax. It is more likely the man making 50K would pay very little in taxes. If the man making 50K pays in only 4K in income tax, thus making the wealthy man pay in 50X more, then that would make your argument seem far less compelling. Is that why you did it?

another spirious argument

Your contention is about as sound as your spelling and predictably lacking in anything specific.

I can understand your position concerning rich guys, since your tax free church is mostly dependent on those donors giving you tax deductible charitable contributions.

First of all, I don't have a church. Secondly, the Christ-based, addiction recovery center I work at is funded by a number of churches, and certainly not a little gang of wealthy individuals. Thirdly, I receive no salary, so I have no personal interest in it. Fourthly, you might try and develop a little higher regard for the truth. Your entire statement is incorrect other than the fact, known to everyone who is awake, that charitable donations, such as to PP or PBS, are indeed tax deductible. Personally, I would like to see all of that stopped and let's just institute a flat tax. And fifthly, I have presented no position concerning rich guys. I have presented evidence. It is something I wish you would try, and no that is not intended to be mean spirited. I really do wish you would stick to the truth unlike your statement above which is largely false.

First of all, I don't have a church.

My bad I thought you did. I stand corrected.


Secondly, the Christ-based, addiction recovery center I work at is funded by a number of churches, and certainly not a little gang of wealthy individuals.

I've volunteered in many such programs, as well as private/public recovery programs. Very familiar with the network.


Thirdly, I receive no salary, so I have no personal interest in it.

The experience was enriching enough without a salary but you still have to pay the light bills.



Fourthly, you might try and develop a little higher regard for the truth.

Of which you do not have an exclusive domain.


Your entire statement is incorrect other than the fact, known to everyone who is awake, that charitable donations, such as to PP or PBS, are indeed tax deductible.

Rich guys create huge foundations for such philanthropy.


Personally, I would like to see all of that stopped and let's just institute a flat tax.

No comment on such exclusionary and unequal monetary policy that would blow the budget completely out of the water. Can't pay bills, provide services with less money, or fight a economy destroying pandemic (Or forest fire for that matter).


And fifthly, I have presented no position concerning rich guys. I have presented evidence. It is something I wish you would try, and no that is not intended to be mean spirited. I really do wish you would stick to the truth unlike your statement above which is largely false.

You have selectively taken one fact and made it a total truth when it's not the whole truth. Just a small window into tax policy. Citing it repeatedly doesn't make it any more true.

No comment on such exclusionary and unequal monetary policy that would blow the budget completely out of the water. Can't pay bills, provide services with less money, or fight a economy destroying pandemic (Or forest fire for that matter).You mean the budget is in the water now? The budget has been in a place of insanity for nearly all of the 21st century.

I would institute a tax policy that would be completely dependent on the fed budget. They want to spend 4 tril, then they have to raise 4 tril in taxes. You know, like honest, competent people would do. That would do away with the current crop of deceitful, lying dems and repubs who have found that we have become so stupid as a nation that we are blindly accepting this wildly accumulating federal debt like little mute sheep. If we had to do the responsible, grown-up thing and actually start paying for what we want, you would see fed spending go down in a hurry as it well should. The only exception would be cases of genuine national emergency, and even that needs to have strict limits.

You do mean after you get this economy destroying budget busting virus under control don't you? I mean it qualifies as a huge emergency doesn't it?

Yeah, but not to the tune of just spending money on anything and everything, such as sending checks to people who absolutely do not need it like you and me.

Besides, the national debt has been riding an avalanche for the past twenty years. Bush...Obama...Trump, they have all contributed as well as dem and repub congresses. 2020 by itself has not been the problem. All this will continue as long as we are dumb enough to allow it to continue.

What's JL's solution to the virus besides assuming who doesn't need any money?

I think what we are doing now is about right. Get the vaccine asap. Be a little tough. The sky is not falling. Our obese pres, at 74 years old, weathered the storm in a few days and is doing well now. We just have to ride this out in an intelligent way.

There is no "assuming" to the money. You got about the same income now you had before the virus. You don't need it. I don't need it. My wife doesn't need it, and yet we all got a check, and now they want to send another one. We are a stupid people to let our government get away with this. There are signs up all over our town of businesses looking for people to work. It's ridiculous.

Our obese pres, at 74 years old, weathered the storm in a few days
Did he?

and is doing well now.
Is he?

If showing no symptoms and checking out of the hospital can be characterized as having weathered the storm and doing well, then I'd say yes and yes.

You don't really think he is showing no symptoms, he has visibly aged

If showing no symptoms and checking out of the hospital can be characterized as having weathered the storm and doing well, then I'd say yes and yes.
He was (is still?) on dexamethasone, a steroid!!! and other drugs.... He's a control freak. He wasn't discharged; he checked out (like it was a hotel). This week will be interesting.

I see. I was just going on what the doctors said. Silly me.

I see. I was just going on what the doctors said. Silly me.
Trump is the commander in chief. The doctors are part of the military and/or under the military umbrella. Understand now? (And of course you noticed how they always hedged, and he 'may not entirely be out of the woods'.)

what you have are two opposing views; reality and hyperbole. The doctors know that recover takes time and he may never fully recover particularly at his age, Trump lives in fear he will lose the election and therefore cannot be seen to be anything less than perfect

Athos, using a flat tax in your scenario seems a strange thing to do when we plainly don't have a flat tax

Not a bit strange. It's an example showing the great disparity (unfairness) in taxes between the rich and the poor. See the next answer for your 4K tax.


If the man making 50K pays in only 4K in income tax, thus making the wealthy man pay in 50X more, then that would make your argument seem far less compelling.

Ok, thanks for writing this. NOW I understand your confusion. Your example of 4K makes my argument just as compelling! Now the disparity is $800,000 as against $46,000.


Is that why you did it?

No, I engage in tax discussions to show the unfairness and ways to make it fair.

Here's one way - why not tax capital gains the way income is taxed?

Ok, thanks for writing this. NOW I understand your confusion. Your example of 4K makes my argument just as compelling! Now the disparity is $800,000 as against $46,000.There is no confusion. You used a flat tax for your comparison knowing full well that we don't operate under a flat tax. You did it, I imagine, because it made the numbers work better for you. When you compare a million dollar income with a 50K income, the million dollar guy is going to come off looking better. Is that surprising?

If you look, however, at taxes paid by both people, it comes to 200,000 versus 4,000, a 5,000% differential. So he made 20X more income, but paid 50X more in taxes. Hmm. Turns out the rich guy bore a MUCH larger share of the burden, doesn't it? Sounds beyond fair to me. If we didn't have that wealthy guy, we'd be in a fix.

I'd go with a flat tax that would be keyed to the budget. Spend more, then tax more. No more borrowing other than in genuine national emergencies. If we had to start paying for what we are spending, then spending would go down in a heartbeat. We'd get rid of the lying, deceitful dems and repubs in Congress. No deductions other than exceptional medical expenses. Want to tax cap gains? Fine with me. Just do away with deficit spending.

Trump is the commander in chief. The doctors are part of the military and/or under the military umbrella. Understand now? (And of course you noticed how they always hedged, and he 'may not entirely be out of the woods'.)Oh come on. If they had said something negative, you would believe them instantly. You are actually suggesting he is being treated by crooked doctors, and when they say the pres has no symptoms, they are lying. So it's a big conspiracy??? Are UFOs involved as well?

Doctors always hedge. It's called "being cautious".

Crooked is just you're latest exaggeration. The doctors are clearly under orders to NOT tell the full truth, except he ain't of the woods yet.

The doctors are clearly under orders to NOT tell the full truthSo the docs are lying, but they are not crooked. Well, OK.

At any rate, you have no idea if they are under orders to, "NOT tell the full truth" or not. It's a ridiculous claim on your part. What are you, part of the Secret Service???

They have publicly said they erred by putting an optimistic spin on the dufus condition, as well as cited HIPPAA considerations for not disclosing certain specific information, which no doubt was the dufus idea, right or wrong, since he is a public figure, but still retains a right, as do we all, to decide who gets our medical information. So they are neither crooked or lying.

They said he no longer had symptoms. If that is not true, then they are lying.

Being asymptomatic doesn't mean you don't have covid, so that's no lie.

This is the typical spin put out by the democrat party cheering news media.


A spokeswoman for his campaign on Monday criticized the Democratic presidential nominee, former Vice President Joe Biden, for having not contracted the virus himself.

"He has experience now fighting the coronavirus as an individual," Erin Perrine, director of press communications for Trump's campaign, said in an interview with Fox News Monday morning. "Those first-hand experiences Joe Biden, he doesn't have those."

There was no criticism of anyone for anything there. The spokesman simply pointed out that Trump could now speak with first hand experience on the virus, something Biden could not do. To say he "criticized" Biden for, "not having contracted the virus himself," is ridiculous.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-returning-white-house-learned-coronavirus/story?id=73435073

Being asymptomatic doesn't mean you don't have covid, so that's no lie.Oh stop muddying the waters. There was no suggestion the doctors said he no longer had the virus. They said he no longer had symptoms. If he did have symptoms, then they lied. If he did not have symptoms, then you should believe them.

Are you crazy or something? They doped the dufus up because he did have symptoms, and tested positive for the disease. I think your waters were already pretty muddy. We won't know the course of the virus for several days yet.

Oh stop muddying the waters. There was no suggestion the doctors said he no longer had the virus. They said he no longer had symptoms. If he did have symptoms, then they lied. If he did not have symptoms, then you should believe them.
You didn't notice his coughing that was poorly editing out of that four-minute video in the hospital? or the way he had to haul himself up the steps to the WH? or his labored breathing once he got to the balcony?

Prednisone nicely covered up my aplastic anemia symptoms and made me super happy and confident, even a bit crazy, as dexamethasone has done for his covid.

Are you crazy or something? They doped the dufus up because he did have symptoms, and tested positive for the disease. I think your waters were already pretty muddy. We won't know the course of the virus for several days yet.No one has suggested otherwise other than the "doped up" part that is just laughable. Of course he HAD symptoms. HAD is past tense. He HAS no symptoms now according to his docs. That is present tense. You must stop living in the past.

You didn't notice his coughing that was poorly editing out of that four-minute video in the hospital? or the way he had to haul himself up the steps to the WH? or his labored breathing once he got to the balcony?

Prednisone nicely covered up my aplastic anemia symptoms and made me super happy and confident, even a bit crazy, as dexamethasone has done for his covid.You think his docs lied. I think they are telling the truth. You believe in conspiracies such as the editing of tapes to cover up a cough. I think that's a stretch. You think you know how his docs treated him. I kind of doubt that.

You know how crazy you're talking this morning JL? Much crazier than normal so maybe YOU have new meds, or the old ones need renewing? Or maybe you took a double dose of dufus BS today?

As usual, throwing around nonsense with no specifics at all. I must admit that you are very good at talking a great deal about nothing. It seems to be your specialty.

Keep working on the past tense/present tense deal. You'll get it one day soon. It's really not that hard.

You're a NUT!

You think his docs lied. I think they are telling the truth. You believe in conspiracies such as the editing of tapes to cover up a cough. I think that's a stretch. You think you know how his docs treated him. I kind of doubt that.
No, I don't think his doctors lied. They hedged: he "may not entirely be out of the woods". And watch the videos, please. More than once. You can see his chest move and head jerk with the cough, and you can see him trying to catch his breath once he reached the balcony.

When you compare a million dollar income with a 50K income, the million dollar guy is going to come off looking better. Is that surprising?

Of course it's not surprising that the million dollar guy is going to come off looking better. That's the issue – how the the tax system favors the rich. You are inadvertently supporting our thesis. Thank you



Turns out the rich guy bore a MUCH larger share of the burden,


In a progressive tax system, the richer always have a larger tax liability than the poorer. That's the nature of a progressive tax system. Our point is that, even though the rich pay more taxes, the work of the poor supports the rich getting those big bucks. That's why, when you keep harping on the tax paid by the rich, we know you are missing the point being made.


Want to tax cap gains? Fine with me.

I'm glad you agree with treating capital gains with the same rate as earned income. How about taxing corporations' off shore profits at least as much as we tax their US profits.

No, I don't think his doctors lied. They hedged: he "may not entirely be out of the woods". And watch the videos, please. More than once. You can see his chest move and head jerk with the cough, and you can see him trying to catch his breath once he reached the balcony.

The doctor (an osteopath!!!) also said he didn't tell the truth (or omitted the truth - can't remember) because he wanted to keep everything "positive". It was an important stat about lung test results. Also he skated on Trump's blood oxygen percentage. I'm sure Trump is telling them what to say and what to avoid. Now that I've read two books about Trump by people who knew him intimately, nothing Trump does would surprise me. .

In a progressive tax system, the richer always have a larger tax liability than the poorer.Finally. The truth has come forth! Thank you so much! It is not only larger, it is proportionally much larger as in the example we looked at. 20X more income, but 50X more tax paid.

The rich are better off than the not-rich, but no because of tax policies. It is because THEY ARE RICH.


I'm glad you agree with treating capital gains with the same rate as earned income. How about taxing corporations' off shore profits at least as much as we tax their US profits.I'm open to considering a lot of things as long as we have a balanced budget.

The docs said he had no symptoms when discharged. That's the statement we are discussing. Either they lied or they didn't. WG is trying to camp out somewhere in the middle.

The docs said he had no symptoms when discharged. That's the statement we are discussing. Either they lied or they didn't. WG is trying to camp out somewhere in the middle.
I'm not. Trump's doctors are/were.

I'm not. Trump's doctors are/were.

Why won't the doctors reveal when Trump last tested negative? They are playing Trump's game.

Finally. The truth has come forth! Thank you so much

You're welcome, but that was a given from day one. Nobody ever denied that.


It is not only larger, it is proportionally much larger

As it should be - but not large enough. Trump dropped the rate to accommodate himself while promising a $4000 reduction for the middle class and a big jump in growth. His promises never came to be.


The rich are better off than the not-rich, but no because of tax policies. It is because THEY ARE RICH.

Tax policies play a big part. The real problem is the redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top. To say the rich are rich because they are rich deserves no comment.


The docs said he had no symptoms when discharged. That's the statement we are discussing. Either they lied or they didn't.

That's a half-truth and the doctor knows it. They say it like it's all that needs to be said. There's much more.


WG is trying to camp out somewhere in the middle.

WG is right on target. She keyed on asymptomatic which is a huge problem with COVID.

Nobody ever denied that.Sure they didn't.


As it should be - but not large enoughWe can argue how large it should be. I'm just glad we are no longer discussing whether or not it exists.


To say the rich are rich because they are rich deserves no comment.If anyone had said that, you would be right. Since it hasn't been said, then...


That's a half-truth and the doctor knows itSo now you know what the docs know? Wow. Amazing. And half-truths are also known as lies.


She keyed on asymptomatic No, she didn't. She keyed in on the docs saying he had no symptoms when, according to her, he did. Remember the great, hidden cough conspiracy she brought up? You think the whole thing is tied to either UFOs or the Kennedy assassination?

You think the whole thing is tied to either UFOs or the Kennedy assassination?

What I think is that you're an a**hole. I've been too good to you.

No, she didn't. She keyed in on the docs saying he had no symptoms when, according to her, he did. Remember the great, hidden cough conspiracy she brought up?
The. Doctor. Said. He. "may not entirely be out of the woods.

Watch the videos!!! (Put on your glasses first!) The Republicans poorly edited out the coughing.

My husband had a cardio appointment this afternoon. His doctor remarked that people with diabetes, heart problems, lung problems, and kidney problems are fair game for covid, but it can affect anyone. AND too often they are without obvious symptoms even when they have tested positive.

What I think is that you're an a**hole.Well, so much for you dropping the name-calling, and you are plainly out of ideas. It's the number one indicator. You run out of ideas so you start the name-calling. WG is nicer, but she just disappears for a while.


The. Doctor. Said. He. "may not entirely be out of the woods."The same doctor who said he was symptom free? Why do you believe one statement but not the other? Oh well. Lying doctors and conspiracies. All I know is he is said to be symptom free. Why on earth that has to be debated endlessly is beyond me.

WG is nicer, but she just disappears for a while.
Only when I get tired of being put down or if I have no interest in current threads.

The same doctor who said he was symptom free?
Yes, you can be symptom free but not yet "out of the woods," as Dr. Conley said and as my husband's cardio doctor told him today. The next seven or so days of Trump's life will solve that mystery.

Yes, you can be symptom free but not yet "out of the woods". Sounds reasonable to me.

Thankfully you are courteous enough not to call dumb names. I will tell you, that gets old. It is such a low-class, non-thinking approach. I do appreciate you not doing it.

Thankfully you are courteous enough not to call dumb names. I will tell you, that gets old. It is such a low-class, non-thinking approach. I do appreciate you not doing it.
Are you taking prednisone?

What?

What?
You're suddenly so charming and happy and even fun!

I have not ALWAYS been charming, happy, and fun??? 8D

Perhaps I should try that prednisone.

I have not ALWAYS been charming, happy, and fun??? 8D
Um, no.

Perhaps I should try that prednisone.
I have a month's supply. What's your address? :-D

Um, no.OK. Just for that, no more Mr. Nice Guy!! 8D

Mr. nice guy? you are deluded

Well, so much for you dropping the name-calling, and you are plainly out of ideas. It's the number one indicator. You run out of ideas so you start the name-calling.

Your nastiness has been met with equal nastiness. As far as being out of ideas, anybody can read these pages and decide for themselves just who is out of ideas. Your idea seems to be repeating the same thing over and over. That's what's so frustrating about dealing with you. That and your re-writing a comment by someone else to suit yourself.

You even have the normally genial Tal calling you a NUT - TWICE!

Not a nut a total fruit cake

Your nastiness has been met with equal nastiness. As far as being out of ideas, anybody can read these pages and decide for themselves just who is out of ideas. Your idea seems to be repeating the same thing over and over. That's what's so frustrating about dealing with you. That and your re-writing a comment by someone else to suit yourself.If you have an argument, then present it. I don't pay any attention to this silly complaining.


You even have the normally genial Tal calling you a NUT - TWICE!Tal is genial? There must be two Tals on this site.

Tal just gets frustrated when he's wrong. I imagine that's true of everyone. I do rather admire him since he is at least willing to answer questions. He was simply wrong when he stated that a thousand unfertilized eggs passed through the uterus every month. Even his own site said that was not right, so he got frustrated and lashed out. He'll calm down. The strange thing is that it's not really important to the topic we were discussing. It makes no difference.

You being a nut is not a big deal my friend, nor is facing the possibility of my being wrong. You just don't have the evidence to prove me wrong and that's okay. You have proved you're going to keep trying, and that's okay with me too. No big thang!

Read it again...c a r e f u l l y. V e r y___c a r e f u l l y.


He was simply wrong when he stated that a thousand unfertilized eggs passed through the uterus every month. Even his own site said that was not right, so he got frustrated and lashed out. He'll calm down. The strange thing is that it's not really important to the topic we were discussing. It makes no difference.

I t__d o e s__n o t__h a p p e n___p e r i o d. (No pun intended)

You would appear much more sensible if you would simply say, "Oops. What I described happens on the ovaries, and not in the uterus. My bad." But like I said, it has nothing to do with when life begins or the abortion question. I really don't even know why you would bring it up.

You cannot exclude or dismiss such an integral part of the female reproductive system that works so wondrously together to perpetrate the species just to satisfy your own artificial social moralities. In nature there is truth, in JL there is a NUT!

Dismissing that basic truth as a marketing ploy for services is preposterous.

I t__d o e s__n o t__h a p p e n___p e r i o d. (No pun intended)

You would appear much more sensible if you would simply say, "Oops. What I described happens on the ovaries, and not in the uterus. My bad." But like I said, it has nothing to do with when life begins or the abortion question. I really don't even know why you would bring it up.[/COLOR][/FONT]

Good grief, Tal. Your own link said it did not happen. Let it go.

<Sigh> Well I suppose if you can let go of the obvious fact that the dufus is a doper right now then I suppose I could let go of presenting you with facts you obviously don't have the capacity to understand.

Feel better? Your welcome.

of presenting you with factsWhen you do, I'll acknowledge it. If you want to insist on believing an outlandish idea that your own linked website refuted and for which you have zero support, then that's your right. It's a largely free country. I'm done with it until you can present something beyond your own incorrect opinion.

That's fine! Up to you what you believe and do about it.

You cannot exclude or dismiss such an integral part of the female reproductive system that works so wondrously together to perpetrate the species just to satisfy your own artificial social moralities. In nature there is truth, in JL there is a NUT!

Dismissing that basic truth as a marketing ploy for services is preposterous.

Ha ha - Great post, tal. "...artificial social moralities" - WOW!

It's OK Tal. You'll wake up someday.


Dismissing that basic truth as a marketing ploy for services is preposterous.Don't be stupid. I didn't do that. At any rate, your own site showed how ignorantly false your idea was. So like I said, if you can come up with any support at all beyond your own self-inflated opinion, let me know.

It's OK Tal. You'll wake up someday.

Don't make me sic my 6yo Gdaughter on you!


Don't be stupid. I didn't do that. At any rate, your own site showed how ignorantly false your idea was. So like I said, if you can come up with any support at all beyond your own self-inflated opinion, let me know.


As anyone with knowledge can tell you, the follicle has the potential to become and release a mature egg, but nearly always does not. Don't believe me? Read it for yourself. And by the way, my link is not some med site trying to get women to pay good money for their services.


Go ahead show me the error of my ways...if you can.

Show me where I said it was simply marketing. Never said it.

Six year old? I think I can take her. I have a pretty sneaky right cross. Well, I do on those days when my right arm is working. Probably be a pretty fair contest, now that I think of it.

As to the rest, I have contacted the Surgeon Gen to notify him of your incredible discovery, unsuspected by everyone with any scientific knowledge at all, that a thousand eggs a month move through a woman's uterus. I imagine you can start planning on what to do with the money from your Nobel Prize!!

The implication above was close enough and you have absolutely no deniable plausibility. Plus it's old news about the eggs. I realize the whole argument is a semantic one but not like I got a lot to do.

You're in big trouble buddy as the 6yo is bringing her big sister with her whose in a foul mood since her soccer team didn't play this summer and the basketball team is subject to be canceled if health guidelines aren't met. She told me don't worry she will clean up the mess her elders have left her. Her mama told me the same thing back in the day.

So go ahead tell THEM the same stuff you've been telling me! LOL, I've had my wake up call, it's your turn so try and enjoy it while you can.

Good LUCK! 8D

You're in big trouble buddy as the 6yo is bringing her big sister with her whose in a foul mood since her soccer team didn't play this summer and the basketball team is subject to be canceled if health guidelines aren't met. She told me don't worry she will clean up the mess her elders have left her. Her mama told me the same thing back in the day.I'll be in hiding the next few days.

First I said it, but now I implied it? Well, at least you're going in the right direction.

First I said it, but now I implied it? Well, at least you're going in the right direction.

You'll figure it out, take your time.

Already did😁👌

Hope you also figure out to stay safe and dry too!

And you as well. This one missed us and just left behind some much needed rain.

We have gotten a reprieve from triple digits and that was COOL! 8D

One mans disaster is another's relief I guess. Life is weird.

So very true. Our day will come.

Don't worry the storms just make the sunshine even brighter.

It is true that the skies are especially blue right after a hurricane.