No you can't do it because you are lazy it would seem Tal is right so read the section on the USQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
|
No you can't do it because you are lazy it would seem Tal is right so read the section on the USQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I never said he was wrong. I asked if coal had subsidies and he said it did but provided no references. It is not my job to do his research. There has been a general movement against coal in the U.S. recently, so that's why I asked. If you are going to comment, it would help if you would keep up.Quote:
No you can't do it because you are lazy it would seem Tal is right so read the section on the US
As to your opinion of my laziness, there are not words to describe how little I care what you think.
Yes I have a similar opinion of you but the argument isn't just coal or fossil fuels, it is this whole spectrum of the nonsense of trying to offset global warming by reducing CO2Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Globally, if the big polluters invest in reducing CO2 emissions, then others will seize the chance to profit from that action. That has always been the problem, getting everybody on the same page and if there is a dollar to be made investors will follow the money, no matter the long term consequences. that's just the history of man. Chase profit until you cannot.
Any "investment" in reducing carbon emissions will result in higher electrical bills. Yet another cruel cost hike for the poor.Quote:
Globally, if the big polluters invest in reducing CO2 emissions,
The point behind some of the energy subsidies was to make it affordable. States run a program to help the poor pay heating/electric bills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I'm LMAO at your new found concern for the poor. In this life, you whine and rail about your anger when your taxes are spent for programs for the poor. But you can't leave it at that.
In the next life, you follow those poor into that life by condemning to eternal torture those poor who may believe differently than you do - the "unbelievers".
These are your words, not mine.
At least you are consistent in your disdain and hatred for the poor.
One way or the other, costs go up needlessly. And for the person making 50K a year and not eligible for programs, a doubling of his/her electric bill is going to be a problem.Quote:
The point behind some of the energy subsidies was to make it affordable. States run a program to help the poor pay heating/electric bills.
Ben there done that, in my life. No choice but to pay the electric, but it's tough when you need car repairs and new shoes for the kids. Those making that 50K should be grateful for the resources to deal with such situations, because but for the grace of God, they could be walking in the shoes of those that don't make that 50K. Been there done that too.
That's why corporate welfare and a rich guy complaining about his high taxes burns my butt! More unacceptable is giving them a windfall on MY and my kids credit card! Greedy ungrateful b@stards!
50K is not living high on the hog. We ought to be looking out for those people rather than saddling them with higher bills which accomplish very little.Quote:
Ben there done that, in my life. No choice but to pay the electric, but it's tough when you need car repairs and new shoes for the kids. Those making that 50K should be grateful for the resources to deal with such situations, because but for the grace of God, they could be walking in the shoes of those that don't make that 50K. Been there done that too.
You ought to be glad for those people. For the 500th time, the top 20% of taxpayers pay more than 85% of income taxes. What a windfall.Quote:
That's why corporate welfare and a rich guy complaining about his high taxes burns my butt! More unacceptable is giving them a windfall on MY and my kids credit card! Greedy ungrateful b@stards!
You can tell any story with statistics, it is obvious people with the money pay the tax, what you haven't said is why the 80% pay less tax. It is because the wealth isn't in their hands. Anyway it is all an illusion because income tax only accounts for about half taxation revenueQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You should be a lot more sympathetic to the working poor and those people who make 20K. The top 20% have enough wealth to live high off the hog and loopholes and tax shelters to defend themselves very well.
Quote:
For the 500th time, the top 20% of taxpayers pay more than 85% of income taxes. What a windfall.
You paid for it, they didn't earn it, and it adds to the debt. Rich people welfare. They have no need for your sympathy when they have your money.
Thank you Clete. The dufus economy is a$$ backwards to sound fiscal policyQuote:
You can tell any story with statistics, it is obvious people with the money pay the tax, what you haven't said is why the 80% pay less tax. It is because the wealth isn't in their hands. Anyway it is all an illusion because income tax only accounts for about half taxation revenue
https://www.thebalance.com/current-u...evenue-3305762
In what possible universe do you consider the top 20% of income earners paying more than 85% of the income tax some sort of welfare for the rich??? And when you add in that the lowest 50% of income earners pay next to nothing, it is really hard to justify your story of the wealthy somehow being able to avoid paying taxes.Quote:
You paid for it, they didn't earn it, and it adds to the debt. Rich people welfare. They have no need for your sympathy when they have your money.
Hourly working people pay payroll taxes don't they? Even after a refund it's hardly enough to get out of poverty so what's your bias against working poor, or low income folks?
By payroll tax I assume you mean Social Security which is technically not a tax. You are buying participation in a retirement/med care plan. For you to say I have a bias against the poor is just nonsense. I've said nothing to that effect other than to say that the lower 50% basically do not pay income tax. I have no idea how pointing out that they don't pay income tax somehow amounts to being biased against the poor.Quote:
Hourly working people pay payroll taxes don't they? Even after a refund it's hardly enough to get out of poverty so what's your bias against working poor, or low income folks?
I don't see the logic of your argument. You say that those with low income don't pay income tax, but they pay other taxes, so they are not getting a free ride. In fact, the impact of taxation on them is greater than it is on that top 20% you love so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You have consistently shown attitudes against the poor revealed in your tax philosophy. "Blame the victim" is what you preach - a throwback to 1850 Victorian England.
I'm not really making an argument. I'm simply pointing out that when the top 20% pay 85% of the income tax while the bottom 50% pay virtually nothing, then it's hard to make an argument that we have a tax policy that favors the rich. The bottom 50% most certainly are getting a free ride in the area of income tax.Quote:
I don't see the logic of your argument. You say that those with low income don't pay income tax, but they pay other taxes, so they are not getting a free ride. In fact, the impact of taxation on them is greater than it is on that top 20% you love so much.
The poor do pay social security IF they have jobs, but that is not a tax so much as it allows a person to participate in the fed's retirement/med care program. Now if you want to talk about sales taxes and property taxes, then the poor do pay those, but even then the wealthy pay a great deal more.
I would agree with anyone that the federal tax code is ridiculously over-complex and has many areas intended to give breaks to favored groups. I'd love to see the code for personal income tax greatly simplified so that most people could fill out an income tax form in about five minutes.
You find the quotes from me where those "attitudes" have been shown. Otherwise just admit you are making it all up. "Blame the victim"? That made me laugh. I've done no such thing.Quote:
You have consistently shown attitudes against the poor revealed in your tax philosophy. "Blame the victim" is what you preach - a throwback to 1850 Victorian England.
As the poor get poorer they will have to take more of your money to feed them. As the rich get richer, they hoard more money. Then you will blame who for taking your money? How come you don't blame the dufus for taking your money and giving it to someone else? Or your local welfare department?
In this economy the poor are not getting poorer.Quote:
As the poor get poorer they will have to take more of your money to feed them.
Rich people don't hoard money. Rich people spend and invest money which is a benefit to a lot of people.Quote:
As the rich get richer, they hoard more money.
No one is taking my money so I have no idea what you're talking about.Quote:
Then you will blame who for taking your money? How come you don't blame the dufus for taking your money and giving it to someone else? Or your local welfare department?
In this economy the poor are not getting poorer.
Prices rise wages don't
Rich people don't hoard money. Rich people spend and invest money which is a benefit to a lot of people.
They hide money in tax havens and invest in stocks and buy who YOU elect to make MO'MONEY
No one is taking my money so I have no idea what you're talking about.
Could have sworn you complained about the government taking your money and giving it to someone else. Something to do with you decide who to help not the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
He wrote page after page of that nonsense and now he's denying it?
My bad. I misunderstood your meaning. Yes, I very much blame Trump and the dem congress for wasteful spending and a trillion dollar deficit. He is, unfortunately, exactly like Obama in that regard. He is taking marginally less money from me than Obama did. I thought that was your meaning.Quote:
How come you don't blame the dufus for taking your money and giving it to someone else? Or your local welfare department?...Could have sworn you complained about the government taking your money and giving it to someone else. Something to do with you decide who to help not the government.
Wages have increased significantly. https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/central.htmlQuote:
Prices rise wages don't
"Invest in stocks". Isn't that what I said??? Investment is essential to a healthy economy. As to buying politicians, the last time I checked we still have elections. Money can only do so much. People still get to vote.Quote:
They hide money in tax havens and invest in stocks and buy who YOU elect to make MO'MONEY.
That made me laugh. If I was denying "nonsense", then wouldn't that be a good thing, and wouldn't you agree with me if, indeed, I was denying "nonsense"? Think a little.Quote:
He wrote page after page of that nonsense and now he's denying it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Here you go again - playing word games. As anyone can see, you are not very good at it. Attempting wit, you have simply tied yourself up in a knot.
Think a little.
It wasn't an attempt at wit. It was an illustration of logic. You missed it.Quote:
Here you go again - playing word games. As anyone can see, you are not very good at it. Attempting wit, you have simply tied yourself up in a knot.
Think a little.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Thank you - I should have said attempting logic.
And like I said, you completely missed it, and still do. TDS will do that to a person.Quote:
Thank you - I should have said attempting logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
No I didn't miss anything - I know exactly what you were trying to say, and failing at it.
Yes, Trump has a syndrome that we can logically call derangement. I wonder at the right associating this derangement with Trump - no doubt somebody's not-so-clever idea that backfired bigly. It's pretty much disappeared except for this site.
That's the problem with missing something. You don't realize that you missed it. But to settle the matter, try restating what I was saying and then point out what was wrong with it.Quote:
No I didn't miss anything - I know exactly what you were trying to say, and failing at it.
That could take a while given the fertile grounds of inaccuracy you have sown.
Go ahead. Give it a try. Simply restating a couple of sentences shouldn't be too demanding.Quote:
That could take a while given the fertile grounds of inaccuracy you have sown.
And while you're at it, point out where I have been inaccurate. If I have been incorrect with data, then I want to know it.
You do know I have a life and I fact check you as I go, so my statement stands as is. Won't be long before I fact check you again knowing you will soon post something else besides daring me to prove you wrong again.
If you are going to make an accusation, you really should be able to back it up. But even at that, just restating two or three sentences shouldn't cut too deeply into your busy day.Quote:
You do know I have a life and I fact check you as I go, so my statement stands as is. Won't be long before I fact check you again knowing you will soon post something else besides daring me to prove you wrong again.
Hey it's rock chunkin' time! You gonna duck or not? I've semi retired from fact checkin' the JL, and my arm is sore from fact checking the dufus!
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:14 AM. |