Revamping the Republican Strategy

the admins brokered a ceasefire......you violated it.....

The admins "brokered" nothing. They made it clear that calling someone 'pedophile' is against the rules, and have received 100% cooperation from me about it. Then, they advised you that your incessant use of 'cunt' was out of line..and unacceptable.

Awwwww...wanna tissue, crybaby? :rofl2:

Better see if you can get them to make a new rule that no one gets to call crybabies 'Sandusky'!
 
Last edited:
No problem, the business closes it's doors and goes out of business. Investments are moved overseas, where there is no tax to pay.

So how does the business person live here? Where do they get their money? Either they have a business here and collect revenue or they have to bring in the money from another country. One way or another they have to acquire money and that money is taxed. Every investor who receives dividends or cashes out some stock to live on has to get their hands on the money here. Or they can leave the country and live somewhere else but if they stay here they have to get some money from somewhere and that's the money which is taxed.
 
The admins "brokered" nothing. They made it clear that calling someone 'pedophile' is against the rules, and have received 100% cooperation from me about it. Then, they advised you that your incessant use of 'cunt' was out of line..and unacceptable.

Awwwww...wanna tissue, crybaby? :rofl2:

Better see if you can get them to make a new rule that no one gets to call crybabies 'Sandusky'!

actually, Cunt, calling me Sandusky instead of pedophile is so thinly veiled that if you weren't so shallow we would have to swim in it.......
 
no, I don't think its too much to ask that a woman give birth to a child she conceived.....if she doesn't want it she could either give it up for adoption or sell it to a liberal who wants to kill it......

Mansplaining again...men are too stupid sometimes.
 
So how does the business person live here? Where do they get their money? Either they have a business here and collect revenue or they have to bring in the money from another country. One way or another they have to acquire money and that money is taxed. Every investor who receives dividends or cashes out some stock to live on has to get their hands on the money here. Or they can leave the country and live somewhere else but if they stay here they have to get some money from somewhere and that's the money which is taxed.

I've been around a while, and I don't recall rich people ever having a problem obtaining money. They also don't mind paying taxes on money they need to live on. Where the taxes are a problem is investment capital, coupled with the fact that rich people aren't stupid. They don't have to invest their capital in things here, which can be excessively taxed. They can choose to invest elsewhere, and they do. They can use their wealth to create more wealth elsewhere, without the tax burden. What small amount they use to live on, could just be a fraction of what they gained for the year, and that is all they will pay tax on. Their wealth continues to grow and multiply, but someone else is benefiting from jobs it creates and prosperity.

Let's say we have someone who has $100 million in foreign investments. Each year, his investments return a healthy 10% ($10 million) but his annual living expenses are around $1 million. He will pay 36% tax on $1 million, but the other $9 million he earned, is not taxed because it wasn't claimed as income, it remains invested overseas, along with the rest of his $100 million. He doesn't bring all this wealth home, because you'd want to charge him $36 million in taxes immediately, if he did so. Then, if he made the $10 million here, you'd charge him $3.6 million more in taxes here, while he can keep the money were it is and pay little or no tax. You still get $360k in taxes on his $1 million earned income, but that's it. Now maybe you are fine with that, and everyone is happy, but not having his $100 million in our economy, is costing jobs and venture investment capital, which is creating a really shitty economic condition for us. EVEN IF we had to waive his tax liability on the $100 million, it would be worth it to have that money in the US, where the $10 million annual dividend could be taxed, and at the same time, the $100 million could be used to create new jobs and economic prosperity.

Then, there is one other aspect to this. Of all the rich people I've ever known, I never knew one who NEEDED to make money. Some LIKED to do it, some WANTED to do it, but I can't think of a singe rich person who ever NEEDED to make money. They seem to always have their necessities covered, they do as they please and live as they like, but their wealth is such that they simply do not care to try and make more money. Most of us can't relate, we have a NEED to make money, we have bills to pay and a lifestyle to maintain, etc. Because we don't possess wealth, we have the perspective that we NEED to make money. Some of us can't even rationalize that others would not have this same need, and so we get this thinking that we can excessively tax the rich, and they have no choice but to pay up.

We do not tax wealth in this country. We tax INCOME. A wealthy person doesn't really NEED an income. They can live comfortably for the rest of their lives, and probably their children as well, on the acquired wealth they now have. Yep, we already sock it to them at tax time, most of them pay more Federal tax than some of us will earn in income over the next 10 years. But this is largely due to their lifestyle choices and the fact they don't really mind paying the taxes to live rich in America. The more taxation we heap on, the less a rich person enjoys making money or trying to make money, and even living a rich lifestyle. The more you add to the tax burden, the less they are inclined to use their wealth to generate more wealth. The more they are inclined to cut back on what they do, sell the yacht or jet, and the villa in Paris. They start paying lawyers and accountants to figure out ways they can move their wealth to their kids and grandkids, through off-shore accounts, treasury bonds and annuities, college savings funds, etc. They STOP making their wealth available for capitalist investment because there is no longer enough justifiable reward for the cost involved and the risks. Now, what THIS does, is it affects people in the upper middle class, who are trying to start a small business, or become wealthy themselves. They no longer have the available financial power to make it happen, and must really struggle to meet the ever-increasing demands and costs of doing business. This means they have to downsize and become very efficient, which means fewer jobs and less pay for the work expected. This affects the middle and lower classes because it stifles almost all job creation.
 
Baby-avatar-Sandusky-obsesso just can't keep himself from biting bait. You're a pathetic laugh-riot, loser.

:rofl2:

you found it irresistible to accuse me of pedophilia again and you think I'M the one obsessing?......you're overflowing with cuntism.....must be turkey overdose.....
 
you found it irresistible to accuse me of pedophilia again and you think I'M the one obsessing?......you're overflowing with cuntism.....must be turkey overdose.....

No one 'accused' you of anything, Sandusky. You merely got called a name and now you're blubbering over it. If you don't like the correlation being drawn, perhaps you ought to examine yourself, your avatars and all the obsessions you demonstrate (hatred of women, compulsion to control their sexuality, etc.) Act like an adult and take responsibility for the image you've cultivated here. If you don't like how you're perceived, do something about it, stupid.
 
I've been around a while, and I don't recall rich people ever having a problem obtaining money. They also don't mind paying taxes on money they need to live on. Where the taxes are a problem is investment capital, coupled with the fact that rich people aren't stupid. They don't have to invest their capital in things here, which can be excessively taxed. They can choose to invest elsewhere, and they do. They can use their wealth to create more wealth elsewhere, without the tax burden. What small amount they use to live on, could just be a fraction of what they gained for the year, and that is all they will pay tax on. Their wealth continues to grow and multiply, but someone else is benefiting from jobs it creates and prosperity.

Let's say we have someone who has $100 million in foreign investments. Each year, his investments return a healthy 10% ($10 million) but his annual living expenses are around $1 million. He will pay 36% tax on $1 million, but the other $9 million he earned, is not taxed because it wasn't claimed as income, it remains invested overseas, along with the rest of his $100 million. He doesn't bring all this wealth home, because you'd want to charge him $36 million in taxes immediately, if he did so. Then, if he made the $10 million here, you'd charge him $3.6 million more in taxes here, while he can keep the money were it is and pay little or no tax. You still get $360k in taxes on his $1 million earned income, but that's it. Now maybe you are fine with that, and everyone is happy, but not having his $100 million in our economy, is costing jobs and venture investment capital, which is creating a really shitty economic condition for us. EVEN IF we had to waive his tax liability on the $100 million, it would be worth it to have that money in the US, where the $10 million annual dividend could be taxed, and at the same time, the $100 million could be used to create new jobs and economic prosperity.

Then, there is one other aspect to this. Of all the rich people I've ever known, I never knew one who NEEDED to make money. Some LIKED to do it, some WANTED to do it, but I can't think of a singe rich person who ever NEEDED to make money. They seem to always have their necessities covered, they do as they please and live as they like, but their wealth is such that they simply do not care to try and make more money. Most of us can't relate, we have a NEED to make money, we have bills to pay and a lifestyle to maintain, etc. Because we don't possess wealth, we have the perspective that we NEED to make money. Some of us can't even rationalize that others would not have this same need, and so we get this thinking that we can excessively tax the rich, and they have no choice but to pay up.

We do not tax wealth in this country. We tax INCOME. A wealthy person doesn't really NEED an income. They can live comfortably for the rest of their lives, and probably their children as well, on the acquired wealth they now have. Yep, we already sock it to them at tax time, most of them pay more Federal tax than some of us will earn in income over the next 10 years. But this is largely due to their lifestyle choices and the fact they don't really mind paying the taxes to live rich in America. The more taxation we heap on, the less a rich person enjoys making money or trying to make money, and even living a rich lifestyle. The more you add to the tax burden, the less they are inclined to use their wealth to generate more wealth. The more they are inclined to cut back on what they do, sell the yacht or jet, and the villa in Paris. They start paying lawyers and accountants to figure out ways they can move their wealth to their kids and grandkids, through off-shore accounts, treasury bonds and annuities, college savings funds, etc. They STOP making their wealth available for capitalist investment because there is no longer enough justifiable reward for the cost involved and the risks. Now, what THIS does, is it affects people in the upper middle class, who are trying to start a small business, or become wealthy themselves. They no longer have the available financial power to make it happen, and must really struggle to meet the ever-increasing demands and costs of doing business. This means they have to downsize and become very efficient, which means fewer jobs and less pay for the work expected. This affects the middle and lower classes because it stifles almost all job creation.

You wrote, "A wealthy person doesn't really NEED an income. They can live comfortably for the rest of their lives, and probably their children as well, on the acquired wealth they now have."

While that may be true show me ONE wealthy person who is not interested in making money. I think you've overdosed on that Rand gal. No, Dix, the wealthy are not going to stop making money to spite us. I can assure you of that. Furthermore, there are few individuals in that situation. In any case, if they wish to live a poor lifestyle in order to avoid paying taxes then that's part of the solution, isn't it? Remember, poverty is the relationship between people, not a specific dollar amount.

Let's take your example. A rich person decides to not bring money into the country because of taxes and chooses to live a poor lifestyle. They go to the store to buy a loaf of bread or a TV or whatever. They are going to check the price because they've chosen to live "economically". They are not going to pay any price as they have chosen to live on less money and we all know the price of things are determined by what the market will bear. That means the price of the bread or TV will be kept lower than if one was willing to pay more. Are you following along?

So, the plumber goes to the store. He can afford the bread or the TV because the price the market will bear is lower than if the other guy was willing to pay an exorbitant price. Again, poverty is the relationship between people. It is the outrageous inequality that defines poverty and when it comes to life and death things like medical care people will not tolerate it. Nor should they.

The differing philosophical views were evident his past election. Mitt made it clear money rules and those who cant afford will do without. Obama made it clear the wealthy will pay more taxes. The choice was clear and the people spoke. Believe what you want, rationalize it any way you want, but things are changing. The injustice has to be addressed and considering Obama's record it's obvious the people voted for him to do exactly that as opposed to voting for him because of his right wing, capitalist ideas and goals and achievements. A fundamental change has to and is taking place. It's not too late to come on board the Democrat wagon. I'm sure there are still some Dems here who will put in a good word for you. :)
 
No one 'accused' you of anything, Sandusky. You merely got called a name and now you're blubbering over it. If you don't like the correlation being drawn, perhaps you ought to examine yourself, your avatars and all the obsessions you demonstrate (hatred of women, compulsion to control their sexuality, etc.) Act like an adult and take responsibility for the image you've cultivated here. If you don't like how you're perceived, do something about it, stupid.

and why do you perceive it that way, Cunt?......
 
You wrote, "A wealthy person doesn't really NEED an income. They can live comfortably for the rest of their lives, and probably their children as well, on the acquired wealth they now have."

While that may be true show me ONE wealthy person who is not interested in making money.

ME! Now, granted, I don't have billions in wealth, and if I went to a rich person convention, I might get snickered at over my meager fortune, but compared to the average person, I think I qualify as "wealthy" with just over $6 mil in personal assets. I'm not the least bit interested in making more money.

I think you've overdosed on that Rand gal. No, Dix, the wealthy are not going to stop making money to spite us. I can assure you of that.

I never said anything about spite. I agree, they won't stop making money to spite you. They'll stop because the costs and risks aren't worth the headaches. You can't fix that by adding more cost and headaches. I can assure you of that.

Furthermore, there are few individuals in that situation. In any case, if they wish to live a poor lifestyle in order to avoid paying taxes then that's part of the solution, isn't it? Remember, poverty is the relationship between people, not a specific dollar amount.

I never said they intend to live a poor lifestyle. I'm an eccentric wealthy person, I live in a small modest home, I have a couple of older cars, never have owned a yacht or jet, and probably never will. I don't blow money on material things, I am much happier with the simple things in life. I could vacation anywhere in the world, stay in the finest hotels, eat at the finest restaurants, and have champagne at my table every night.... I am happier with a 6-pack and my guitar, somewhere in the wilderness with my tent and a campfire. That said, I never live a "poor lifestyle" or do without the things I want.

Let's take your example. A rich person decides to not bring money into the country because of taxes and chooses to live a poor lifestyle. They go to the store to buy a loaf of bread or a TV or whatever. They are going to check the price because they've chosen to live "economically". They are not going to pay any price as they have chosen to live on less money and we all know the price of things are determined by what the market will bear. That means the price of the bread or TV will be kept lower than if one was willing to pay more. Are you following along?

Nope. Not following you, are you trying to argue that market prices are determined by what one rich person may do? When I go to the store, I look at the prices just like anyone who is on a budget. I don't HAVE to do this, it's just how I approach things. I like a lean hamburger, so one of my quirks is, I will look at the prices on round or sirloin roast, it's usually cheaper than ground beef, so I have the butcher grind up the roast and save about .50-.75 a pound, plus, get the lean kind of hamburger I like. I paid cash for my home, it came from a tax lien auction, where I got it for about 1/4 what it's value is.

So, the plumber goes to the store. He can afford the bread or the TV because the price the market will bear is lower than if the other guy was willing to pay an exorbitant price. Again, poverty is the relationship between people. It is the outrageous inequality that defines poverty and when it comes to life and death things like medical care people will not tolerate it. Nor should they.

See, I have this problem with your platitude statement regarding poverty. What the fuck do you mean by "relationship between people?" Sounds like an ever-changing goal post, which we will never meet the demand of. Regardless of how much wealth we redistribute, the relationship between people defining poverty, is not changed. Therefore, we will always have people living in "poverty" even if they are all millionaires! It's this disturbing definition of poverty that troubles me most about liberal ideology.

The differing philosophical views were evident his past election. Mitt made it clear money rules and those who cant afford will do without. Obama made it clear the wealthy will pay more taxes. The choice was clear and the people spoke. Believe what you want, rationalize it any way you want, but things are changing. The injustice has to be addressed and considering Obama's record it's obvious the people voted for him to do exactly that as opposed to voting for him because of his right wing, capitalist ideas and goals and achievements. A fundamental change has to and is taking place. It's not too late to come on board the Democrat wagon. I'm sure there are still some Dems here who will put in a good word for you. :)

As I look across the landscape of dead moderate corpses who've tried to "reach across the aisle" and work with the Democrats, I am somewhat skeptical of your offer. It seems to me, what often happens is a moderate attempts to reach out, and ends up being crucified by the liberals. This makes me believe my best bet is to hold firm to my conservative convictions and relentlessly fight for core conservative values. I don't care that Socialist Marxists won an election, it doesn't matter to me. You can try and cram liberalism down our throats, and you can pass new tax laws and make the wealthy pay more, but then you'll live with the consequences. The rich are not sitting in a corner crying over this, they will be just fine paying another 3-4% in income tax, since most of them no longer really earn income. All it means to them is, income earning isn't going to be a big part of their future endeavors. It doesn't change what they have or how they live, it only changes the availability of venture capital, capitalist investments, and new job creation or economic prosperity. But hey, I am sure Obama has a plan for that!
 
and why do you perceive it that way, Cunt?......

It's already been explained to you, freak-show. You're creepy. Ask anyone here.

What's really funny is how you stupidly think that calling me 'cunt' is in any way injurious to me. All it does is shoot holes in whatever's left in your credibility, particularly the 'Christian' part of it. You can call me 'cunt' all day forever and all it does is make me laugh while you reveal what a fraud you are. Keep it up, loser!! I'm lovin' it.
 
it's like dragging a bit of catnip on a string.....every time I jerk it, the Cunt pounces......fact is, I intend to call you cunt everyday forever......we had put it on the shelf for a while because the admins said you would behave yourself....even your friends know its only happening because you couldn't resist being a cunt.....since you've demonstrated you are still a cunt the cease fire is gone......you and Hamas, two birds of a feather.....
 
Back
Top