ThreePointTakedown

We're talking about taxes, that's it. Sorry that examples of rich not paying much if any taxes through income and poor paying WAAAAY more than that just in sales tax doesn't help to make your case for a new fantasy tax system.

Some of the hardest states to be poor in: Sales tax, LA-9.56%, TN-9.55% AR-9.45% WA-9.39% AL-9.29% Sorry that you don't consider this tax.

The poor, as we all know and has been stated before, are flush with extra cash after paying their bills. The do pay up to 9.6% in sales tax when they buy just about all the things they need to survive. So as far as that is concerned they already pay the flat tax you are interested to implement.

Why do you feel the lowest earners in our economy should pay more in taxes than they already do?

That's fair. Glad you had the temperament and patience to point that out. Instead of trying dunk on someone that couldn't read your mind or interpret the hidden meaning behind your fairly obvious and simple comment. With that being said, do you have literature, scholarship, or studies that might support a flat tax as being more fair and equitable?

Your comment doesn't factor in a flat tax but is a comment on the current tax system. My opinion is that they don't pay their fair share. If you think they do, currently. Please defend that position?

And you have more than innuendo to back that up?

As a hypothetical, if you were worth $100billion and paid less than 1% to taxes. Please defend that to someone making less than $11,000 and paying 10% income tax?

Correct me if I'm wrong. But are you saying, if the don't stand for the anthem(something they don't have to if they don't want to) then they shouldn't try to defend themselves from the vitriol people spew at them for making a choice they are allowed to make? If that's the case, not sure you can square that circle.

News at 9! Exceptions definitely prove the rule that I just made up!

Yes. Government, 'Believe this arbitrary thing that I want you to believe and express that belief in the way I want you to express it, or else.' Violation of free speech/expression

So your 'guess' just so happens to give the benefit of the doubt to the group that you like and not to the group/person you don't like. Racking my brain to think of one word to describe that phenomenon.

All-American & National Champ production between the two teams during the same period say 2016-2024? Granted three HCs at one place. Might not be a great metric. But not no evidence.

Agreed. The reasons that have been presented. Their reasons. Have not convinced me. As I see their beliefs as being harmful to everyone. I feel the need to point out that they don't have good reasons. If they did have a good reason. They should share it and convince me. Since that has not happened yet. I remain unconvinced. As the default position is disbelief rather than ChatJBT's 'I believe it until its proven false'. Would have you believing lots of things. Things that are contrary to the thing they really are trying to defend as a reasonable belief.

(crickets)

44-63 tax rate was 90% for the top tier. That’s only one tax bracket where’s the rest of them?? Regular, 3%, that’s it. Would you be satisfied with this tax system? Loopholes: carried interest, all tax incentives for fossil fuels, increase social security tax ceiling to $(infinity symbol) of earned income$1T, Medicare tax loophole for LLCs$200b, capital gains tax$123b, Stepped-Up loophole$1T, Pass through business deduction, for starters How much is this worth? Lets start with the $80b, ' That is, a $1 increase in spending on the IRS’s enforcement activities results in $5 to $9 of increased revenues.' That's a great ROI. Define Great ROI by whose standards? Yours? Would you say a 5:1 return on an investment is not good? My opinion is that it is. If you disagree please include your reasons? Apple, Amazon, and Google regularly pay fines based on anti-competitive practices. They engage in monopolizing practices, get caught, pay a fine, then begin working on other ways to deter competition, cycle continues. So they’re NOT actual monopolies? They just engage in monopolizing activities Nothing to break up huh? Checkmate All of it. Make elections publicly funded. And rank-choice voting, while we're at it. What money is all of it? How much is it? Who’s spending it? All donations. All PACs and Super PACs. Lobbying would get a boon but we can deal with that later. Thank you for the follow up questions. The investigating really taught me a lot. Google the Glass-Steagall and report back. Why don’t you show me in Glass-Steagal where is says anything about boring banking As you tell people on here the onus is on you Do you really need to see those words in a bill to believe it? That tracks. I’m sorry you feel attacked by having to provide evidence for things. Your lashing out like a toddler is really telling of your temperament when someone disagrees with you. And you don’t have to keep repeating the ‘onus’ as if it’s a term you just learned. That’s what questions are for. Seeing as you are great/not that great at avoiding them. ‘Boring’ in my statement meant, less volatile to the vast majority of consumers that don’t or didn’t have enough money to participate in an investment bank. What the act did was separate commercial banks from investment banks. Again, watch the Newsroom. Olivia Munn gives a great breakdown, if you don’t like reading much. Google estate tax. this didn’t answer my questions. Again the onus is on you. You have no interest in learning anything that isn’t spoon fed to you? Fair, fair. Since I know you’ll believe me if I do the work for you, here we go. Why: It will raise more money in tax to pay for programs that could benefit more than just rich people. You might ask about those programs. Since, it hasn’t happened yet. There isn’t much use in talking about them. If you want to have that conversation, please start another thread and I’ll be happy to give you my suggestions. The rate could stay the same. But its up to each state to determine the floor. There should be a federal floor that is lower than it currently is at $13.92m. I hope this helps. Rich paying taxes, https://finance.yahoo.com/news/billionaires-jeff-bezos-elon-musk-164830206.html or https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax from IRS documents. And of course it should change because they get the roads and bridges for free and should help to pay the cost. Again you avoided answering my questions Your questions: who are the ones you refer to as someAnswered? What is little tax in your mindAnswered? Which ones pay no taxAnswered? Why should it change? Seems like that is pretty obvious but I’ll break it down. Those that make huge sums of money by utilizing roads, bridges, and other infrastructure pay little to nothing to maintain or expand those resources for others, is tantamount to stealing. And we don’t like stealing in this country. Should they be allowed to ‘steal’ when they have such huge sums of money/assets with which to help with the bills? I understand your need to foist your frustration on to someone you might see as the cause of it. But I assure you, your own lazy thinking is the cause of my questions and thus your frustration. I hope this helps you to improve your process. Because that is what we are all trying to do. Well, maybe not you considering your years. But we can try. Accountability: we can't trust people with power, influence, and/or authority. Transparency helps to keep people accountable. Businesses that put up firewalls to keep their dirty deeds from coming out, need to be better policed. Prevention rather then reaction. Who has to? Government. Who are those people with the power and influence? Name them. Do you require the names and addresses of all the people for you to be satisfied? What businesses are you referring to with fire walls? Same follow up question? Better policed by whom? Government. Federal/state/local all have incentive to keep crime rates down, don’t you agree? Prevention of what? Prevention of harm. Harm to the environment, the economy(micro/macro), future business prospects. Defense spending: Because its the most palatable and offers glide path to industries that rely on the spigot of defense money to diversify. Its compassionate to an industry that thrives on having little to none of it to begin with. you didn’t answer why systematically. Answer.Because its the most palatable and offers glide path to industries that rely on the spigot of defense money to diversify. Its compassionate to an industry that thrives on having little to none of it to begin with. Diversify what? Their business. What they make or do to create profit. What industry defense contractors and who’s not compassionate? Lots of people and companies, but they don’t necessarily need to be because they don’t need to be. But I would hope that since the government has been responsible for the growth of the sector, it would be irresponsible if we just cut them off and let them twist. Even thought it might be satisfying to punish a group that I don’t happen to like. Its not in the greater good to do that to people. Maybe a lesson for the kids. Education: Yes. Yes. And yes. But all should be free. But it’s NOT free. Somebody is paying for it. Nobody is forcing anyone to go to college so why should it be paid for by those that don’t go? I don’t grant the premise that non-college goers pay for it. But they do get benefits from those around them being more educated. Such as, less economic volatility. More people to pay for the products/services of small businesses that may have been started by non-college goers. I look forward to your response. I look forward to your response hopefully this time you’ll answer all the questions(do you hold yourself accountable to this statement?)

Since you didn't answer the question twice do you really think you have any leg to stand on asking me to answer a question? Because I know just reading that gets you all hot and bothered I'll answer your question. https://www.brotherhoodmutual.com/resources/safety-library/risk-management-articles/administrative-staff-and-finance/finances/fraudsters-target-churches/#:~:text=Church crime continues to grow,are not included in statistics. Is my source. Considering churches are not required to show anyone how much they take in or spend or have stolen from them. There really is no way of knowing if the number is accurate. But... https://www.augustachronicle.com/story/news/crime/2023/01/10/doj-church-committed-22-million-fraud-scheme-targeting-military/69794832007/ $22M is a lot. And probably not the only one.

Thank you. I was holding my breath for this one. Not all scholarships are state funded. Some of the things states don't like paying for are athletic scholarships. So, conceivably, they have no authority to pull a scholarship and would open themselves up to HUGE lawsuits. Because taking a scholarship is pretty difficult. Prove that you know Mulkey's statement was false or shut up. Just shut up. You're embarrassing. As much as you wish it was true and that it might be. DOES. NOT. MAKE. IT. SO. But thank you for allowing me another opportunity to correct you in all caps. In your fever-dream scenario, do the fans need to be in their seats for the anthem? Why don't you insist the anthem be played at any other event, movies, plays, rec league softball games? Just shut up! Was the anthem played at every single sporting event in the history of these USsofA? No. Then shut up!

Again, this is where I think you have things mixed up. As a gaff I suggested that the 'liberal policies' that would lead them to be poor, but are actually conservative policies(cutting SNAP and just about all funding for education). Which, tend to lead to more people falling and living below the poverty line. So all the policies I listed. Just imagine the opposite of those and you would have policies proven to lift people out of poverty. And the child tax credit that helped cut child poverty, nearly, in half a few years ago.

I believe the comment was that liberal policies contributed to the person being poor. To which I responded with a list of policies that conservatives support. Policies that, at best limit their upward mobility and opportunities and at worst punish people for being poor. Policies that harm as many conservatives as progressives, btw. But don't tell them that or they might start to question the motives

Argh... I'm glad its trying to convey information to a reader. Can that information be considered true or accurate? The answer is we don't know. So what good is a book that claims to be truth or breathed from a higher power if we can't even conclude its authentic? There are other writers that have conveyed the same historical context without claiming to be the alpha and omega and were far more accurate in descriptions.

Best of luck

Which claim was that? That your religion is fictional? That is true and the default position of all things that haven't been proven to be real. Lots of work left for you to do.

A thing that no one has seen, smelt, tasted, or touched is real. But goes to another school. And if you can't prove that the thing that no one can see, taste, smell, or touch doesn't exist then I am perfectly rational to believe all the horrible things it tells me to do and to say.

You've made a claim. Burden of proof is on you.