An idea for bipartisan tax reform

[canceled.2021.1]

This position makes no sense...why is it confiscation if the feds do it, but not your state?

I expect another goalpost shift now.

Let’s be clear. I believe it is confiscation at the state level as well. But since it is unlikely you and I don’t live in the same state then I just confine my arguments to the Fed.

It was unwise of you to assume that I think it is moral for the state to tax income because it wasn’t implicitly stated. You really are a lazy thinker

 

[canceled.2021.1]

It's your stupid opinion for what you think the federal government can and cannot do. And every single time, your stupid opinion is not validated by the courts. So what happens is that you try and foist your subjective opinion as the baseline standards when you've done nothing to earn that entitlement and accommodation.

Actually it is not my opinion at all. It is spelled out quite clearly in the US Constitution

That past courts, Congress’s and and Presidents don’t adhere to its words is a condemnation of them and not the exact words written in the US Constitution.

We all have our opinions. I don’t need to earn any accommodation from you to state my opinion. I don’t make you read it. That is your choice.

Your bitching won’t stop me from holding it

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Yeah, all those pesky social services you are fundamentally opposed to, yet wholly rely on to continue your meaningless existence.

I benefit from ZERO social services and never have. Nice try

 

[LV426]

Not at all. I was responding to your reductionist reasoning.

By saying you think taxation is immoral, then you reversed that in a subsequent post to say "not all" of it is.

 

[LV426]

Not redefining at all. If you circle back to this entire debate it centers around the federal income tax code. That is what you harp on incessantly about changin

No, the debate centers around your personal feelings that the federal government is immoral because it taxes you. That's because you made the debate about that.

 

[LV426]

I don’t argue about income tax cuts on the basis of economics because to do so would be accepting the premise that I think it is OK for the government to tax inco

So then you would agree that there is no economic or fiscal benefit to tax cuts.

 

[TTQ64]

The tax law enacted in December 2017 opened the door to a whole new level of tax-avoidance games primarily available to wealthy individuals and businesses and big corporations.

Read all about it here:

https://www.americanprogress.org/is...s-wealthy-corporations-will-game-new-tax-law/

dump has never paid taxes.....not even for his casinos.

it's why we haven't seen his tax returns.

With all due respect for the OP we don't need a bipartisan tax reform giving people like dump another break.

 

[LV426]

I reject that premise and therefore condone myself to the morality of the government confiscating a citizens property to essentially give to another citizen.

So this is just you running from the economic and fiscal arguments around cutting revenues.

You're too afraid to reveal what you believe in that regard because you know it's indefensible.

So you try to make this an argument about subjective perceptions of what is moral because you think your position has more credibility to it if we speak in exclusively those terms.

I see right through it, by the way.

You can't make an economic or fiscal argument, so instead you make one of emotion.

Stop being so emotional.

 

[Phantasmal]

So then you would agree that there is no economic or fiscal benefit to tax cuts.

I have talked to several people who have to pay taxes this year, retirees, same income as last year, but this year they have to pay and they aren’t happy.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

This is a lazy argument that doesn't stand to scrutiny.

You all told us that Medicare was unconstitutional back in the day, even though it was upheld by the courts.

You all told us that Social Security was unconstitutional back in the day, even though it was upheld by the courts.

You all told us that the ACA was unconstitutional, even though it was upheld by the courts.

So your kind has been wrong about this shit for the last 80 years, so why would you start being right now?

Seems that you don't know shit about the Constitution, since you keep finding yourself on the wrong side of it.

The original text did not provide for any of those things.

The 9th and 10th Amendments are very clearly written.

The Constitution was clear in delineating the role of the federal government. That immoral people have usurped powers not delegated to them does not mitigate the original intent.

That court rulings agree with your preferred policy goals doesn’t mean that truly conform to the original intent of the US Constitution.

In fact if the original intent of the US Constitution was for the federal government to provide retirement and healthcare to people it wouldn’t have taken decades to do.

Keep trying.

 

[LV426]

I reject that premise and therefore condone myself to the morality of the government confiscating a citizens property to essentially give to another citizen.

So before, when you said you didn't think all taxation was immoral, you were bullshitting because you actually do believe that.

 

[LV426]

Let’s be clear. I believe it is confiscation at the state level as well.

This is you moving the bar again. You're not clarifying, you're redefining a second time.

 

[Truth Detector]

The tax law enacted in December 2017 opened the door to a whole new level of tax-avoidance games primarily available to wealthy individuals and businesses and big corporations.

Read all about it here:

https://www.americanprogress.org/is...s-wealthy-corporations-will-game-new-tax-law/

What a massive pile of progressive bull shit.

At the end of 2009, congressional DEMOCRATS drafted a new HEALTH bill and rushed it to President OBAMA for signature in just seven weeks. No congressional REPUBLICANS were permitted in the drafting sessions, and no hearings were held after the draft legislation was released. As a result, no other members of Congress and no members of the public whom the bill’s sweeping provisions would affect had adequate opportunity to review the proposed changes and identify potential problems—much less offer suggestions for how to improve the bill.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

By saying you think taxation is immoral, then you reversed that in a subsequent post to say "not all" of it is.

I think direct taxation of income is immoral

Again I am responding to your reductionist thinking. You are a very shallow thinker

 

[Sailor]

" An idea for bipartisan tax reform"

I have the best idea ever. Instead of everyone wanting to share the wealth, how about everyone share the work? Pay a flat tax on that work. Done.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

So then you would agree that there is no economic or fiscal benefit to tax cuts.

No I don’t have to agree to anything

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I have talked to several people who have to pay taxes this year, retirees, same income as last year, but this year they have to pay and they aren’t happy.

You lie.

 

[Truth Detector]

dump has never paid taxes.....not even for his casinos.
it's why we haven't seen his tax returns.
With all due respect for the OP we don't need a bipartisan tax reform giving people like dump another break.

LIE and LAME.

 

[LV426]

But since it is unlikely you and I don’t live in the same state then I just confine my arguments to the Fed.

You seem really confused about your own position.

You think taxation is immoral, except not all of it, but actually all of it.

It was unwise of you to assume that I think it is moral for the state to tax income because it wasn’t implicitly stated.

I only work with what you give me. You seem to want to give me squashy modelling clay as your belief system, that you then shape and mold as the conversation veers into territory where you contradict yourself.

 

[LV426]

Actually it is not my opinion at all. It is spelled out quite clearly in the US Constitutio

No, you interpret it that way and you are trying to establish your personal interpretation as the standard when you've done nothing to earn that entitlement or accommodation.

Nothing you believe is a given. Nothing.