Or take your money and give it to the guy who was rich before his tax cuts. I guess that's conservative morality.
|
Or take your money and give it to the guy who was rich before his tax cuts. I guess that's conservative morality.
No, that's poor thinking on your part. How is he taking money from me and giving it to rich people? If you mean he is allowing them to keep more of what they have earned, then that is a different matter. How is he taking money from me or you to give to them?Quote:
Or take your money and give it to the guy who was rich before his tax cuts. I guess that's conservative morality.
Tal is confused like all leftists, he thinks what's yours is his
There is no confusion when it comes to simple math and it seems an ex bean counter would know that.
That is not an answer to the question.Quote:
There is no confusion when it comes to simple math and it seems an ex bean counter would know that.
I'm not an ex bean counter Tal I retain my professional qualifications. The simple math is that in order to pay for leftist largess the government has two options, Tax more or print money. If you print money then the math is it becomes worthless, if you tax more then, the math is, it is not the rich who pay the most tax, but the middle and lower classes who are fortunate enough to have an income. Why didn't Trump actually cut middle class tax, answer; he would have been killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Herein ends the math and economics lesson.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Cutting tax is not giving someone someone else's money, it is reducing the burden of individual taxation. Taxation is theft, that is the reality
Who paves the roads in Australia?
Yeah.. well I am SOOOOOOOO glad Hildebeast Clintard lost, we've been subjected to a year and a half of her mentally disturbed ranting about why she lost, blaming everyone and everything but the one thing responsible... herself. And Bernie wasn't much better. We have a BOOMING economy now and record low unemployment for certain ethnic groups no Democrat ever really bothered to help before... and there are more job openings than unemployed people. Yeah... Trump knocked that out of the park.. something OWEBUMMER never could.
That is an interesting question, road making contractors at the behest of local or state government authorities. If the point you are trying to make is it is paid for by taxation in some form then you may be correct. A large part of the revenues of such bodies arises in the form of property taxesQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
since income tax and "sales" tax is a federal tax..
Back in the day when we had a draconian taxation regime, we had fewer paved roads so less income tax has meant more paved roads, go figure
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.t02.htm
https://www.wltx.com/article/news/lo.../101-581306681
https://www.wltx.com/article/news/lo...unty/298820835
So go blast yesterdays news on Clinton and Obama, and I'll blast today's news about The Dufus and Dufus Jr. How's that for splitting the baby? See we both can have our FUN.
Of course I have links to facts.
why would it be any taxing authority except locals ? James Madison favored the Federal Government building roads . Yet he vetoed the bills he received under constitutional concerns .https://founders.archives.gov/docume.../99-01-02-5775Quote:
I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with singal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.
Well that was poli-speak, it said absoluely nothing
That may work for cities but what of the rural areas? I got time if you need to check the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Interesting "facts", I see you can't decide between micro and macro economics but perhaps you can discern why some places are going backwardsQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
As I said back in the day we had fewer paved roads, and that goes for rural areas too. I am not here to provide you with statistics but having driven over a large part of my state and other parts of the country I can tell you that once you didn't have to go far to find an unpaved road, these days they appear confined to fire trails and little used roads in remote areas As a Texan you may understand the concept of a large area and a smaller population slowing the pace of road construction, then again you may be busy constructing those north - south highways for immigrantsQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
http://www.australiaonnet.com/touris...tion/road.html
Our states get federal funds for roads, bridges, and schools to be built and maintained to supplement local user taxes, like tolls and gasoline. The same as YOURS.
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/infrast.../australia.php
We are not devoid of such innovations, there are federally funded road programs, infrastructure grants, toll roads and gasoline taxes here too. Like yourselves, if it can be taxed it is
That has always been my point. Everybody taxes stuff, and everybody has a peeve about it, and where it goes.
Yes Tal but what is important is to lessen the impact on any individual particularly vulnerable individuals. Few people would be able to avoid a 10% impost even if they are not paying income tax and obviously it is even more. I think it unfair to be taxed 30 or 40% of income no matter who you are, and particularly if it is to provide welfare to free loaders. The principle of user pays is well applied here so if you want a new highway which improves travel speed and the overall journey then you pay for using the highway, but why should I, a country dweller, pay for a super highway in the city
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:18 AM. |