The Economist nails it
Comments
-
HHusky said:
I’m with you, but there’s just not the level of support for the idea we need.hardhat said:Death is the solution to all problems
Suggestion: take a second to organize your thoughts before posting, so that you don’t have to invariably post twice within a time span of a minute or two. I understand you think you have so much to say you must respond to everything, but it is really just annoying.HHusky said:
You can fly speck the sentence, but the idea that the numerous and wealthy should continue to be subsidized by the fewer and less wealthy does need revisiting.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Pretty sure inheritance taxes aren't taxes on the old but sure.gifHHusky said:“Though rising total spending on the old is justified, a full-scale gerontocracy is not. Retirees with deep pockets do not need public handouts. On the contrary, they should bear a heavier burden as taxes shift from wages, towards property, inheritance and consumption.”
Time to stop engaging in this fantasy about lowering taxes when you have a society filled with old fuckers living on entitlements. The olds are too numerous and too wealthy overall not to be paying more. -
Reading the bored poasts is still a voluntary activity.SkipBoyd said:HHusky said:
I’m with you, but there’s just not the level of support for the idea we need.hardhat said:Death is the solution to all problems
Suggestion: take a second to organize your thoughts before posting, so that you don’t have to invariably post twice within a time span of a minute or two. I understand you think you have so much to say you must respond to everything, but it is really just annoying.HHusky said:
You can fly speck the sentence, but the idea that the numerous and wealthy should continue to be subsidized by the fewer and less wealthy does need revisiting.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Pretty sure inheritance taxes aren't taxes on the old but sure.gifHHusky said:“Though rising total spending on the old is justified, a full-scale gerontocracy is not. Retirees with deep pockets do not need public handouts. On the contrary, they should bear a heavier burden as taxes shift from wages, towards property, inheritance and consumption.”
Time to stop engaging in this fantasy about lowering taxes when you have a society filled with old fuckers living on entitlements. The olds are too numerous and too wealthy overall not to be paying more. -
Asked and answeredHHusky said:
I paid both halves.RaceBannon said:
Sounds like 75% can be cut then. Math is hardHHusky said:Today, Social Security is the largest program in the federal budget and typically makes up almost one-quarter of total federal spending.Sep 1, 2021
And of course I paid in to SS and so did my employers. Too bad the folks you vote for looted it.
So what?
Which of you is going to vote to end the payments flowing to you?
Kenosha beckons -
You know what we need? More chain migration in which legal aliens bring over there parents and grandparents and then stick them on medicare. That's a solution that would definitely take an MBA to figure out.HHusky said:In 2020, the share of U.S. federal budget spent on Medicare was 12 percent, a four-times increase since 1970. If current laws stand, the share of federal spending on Medicare could rise to one fifth of total budget by 2051.
-
Doesn’t seem like Gasbag is committing to cut his own entitlements.WestlinnDuck said:
You know what we need? More chain migration in which legal aliens bring over there parents and grandparents and then stick them on medicare. That's a solution that would definitely take an MBA to figure out.HHusky said:In 2020, the share of U.S. federal budget spent on Medicare was 12 percent, a four-times increase since 1970. If current laws stand, the share of federal spending on Medicare could rise to one fifth of total budget by 2051.
-
H has successfully argued that social security isn't an entitlement but is an income tax
So mission accomplished there
Even though that destroyed his "point" -
UW_Doog_Bot said:
No, but I'll play, suppose *we don't pay "high taxes" because we are poors.HHusky said:HHusky said:Did anyone actually go look at their effective rate of taxation?
You girls are great at telling me what someone could pay.
So your answer is No.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I notice you completely ignored my other comment. Real head scratcher as to why.HHusky said:Did anyone actually go look at their effective rate of taxation?
You girls are great at telling me what someone could pay.
Do you think we should be paying higher taxes commensurate with spending?HHusky said:
You couldn’t tell my answer is Yes?UW_Doog_Bot said:
So no answer. White flag.UW_Doog_Bot said:
No, but I'll play, suppose *we don't pay "high taxes" because we are poors.HHusky said:HHusky said:Did anyone actually go look at their effective rate of taxation?
You girls are great at telling me what someone could pay.
So your answer is No.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I notice you completely ignored my other comment. Real head scratcher as to why.HHusky said:Did anyone actually go look at their effective rate of taxation?
You girls are great at telling me what someone could pay.
Do you think we should be paying higher taxes commensurate with spending?
That’s on you.
In general, we should raise the money we want to spend. And we should raise it from those who have it.HHusky said:
Might have been voices in your head.UW_Doog_Bot said:
You're contradicting yourself. I heard from you we need to raise taxes on the lower class.HHusky said:
You can fly speck the sentence, but the idea that the numerous and wealthy should continue to be subsidized by the fewer and less wealthy does need revisiting.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Pretty sure inheritance taxes aren't taxes on the old but sure.gifHHusky said:“Though rising total spending on the old is justified, a full-scale gerontocracy is not. Retirees with deep pockets do not need public handouts. On the contrary, they should bear a heavier burden as taxes shift from wages, towards property, inheritance and consumption.”
Time to stop engaging in this fantasy about lowering taxes when you have a society filled with old fuckers living on entitlements. The olds are too numerous and too wealthy overall not to be paying more. -
More from the more fiscally responsible alternative party. Build Back Better through more "infrastructure" It's almost like the dems and the US Chamber of Commerce want more cheap labor to phuck over the American worker.
https://justthenews.com/government/congress/scalise-spending-bill-includes-giving-out-630000-green-cards-foreign-workers
The Democrats' $1.75 trillion spending bill includes making 630,000 unused green cards available to foreign workers and their families, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) revealed Monday.
Scalise noted that in the 2,135-page spending bill, there is a provision under Section 60002 to make about 630,000 unused green cards available to foreigners while many Americans are unemployed or underemployed.
Since President Biden took office, over 1.4 million illegal immigrants have been arrested along the southern border, which is more than the population of the ninth-largest city in America, Dallas, Texas, Scalise added.
The congressman tweeted out on Monday: "Dems' radical spending bill exposed: Green cards for migrants and their families without limits. The provision eliminates current caps and immediately makes approximately 630,000 cards available. It's their way of sneaking their open-borders agenda into this bill."
-
Fuck the fuck off. There is no reason 'society' deserves the benefit of living frugally, investing soundly and leaving behind something for one's family. Or to charity or whoever the fuck they want?HHusky said:“Though rising total spending on the old is justified, a full-scale gerontocracy is not. Retirees with deep pockets do not need public handouts. On the contrary, they should bear a heavier burden as taxes shift from wages, towards property, inheritance and consumption.”
Time to stop engaging in this fantasy about lowering taxes when you have a society filled with old fuckers living on entitlements. The olds are too numerous and too wealthy overall not to be paying more.
Fuck off. FUCK OFF.
How about the government live within its means and stay the fuck out of the income distribution game?
FUCK OFF.
-
Throbber just wonders why we can't all be characters in Atlas Shrugged.PurpleThrobber said:
Fuck the fuck off. There is no reason 'society' deserves the benefit of living frugally, investing soundly and leaving behind something for one's family. Or to charity or whoever the fuck they want?HHusky said:“Though rising total spending on the old is justified, a full-scale gerontocracy is not. Retirees with deep pockets do not need public handouts. On the contrary, they should bear a heavier burden as taxes shift from wages, towards property, inheritance and consumption.”
Time to stop engaging in this fantasy about lowering taxes when you have a society filled with old fuckers living on entitlements. The olds are too numerous and too wealthy overall not to be paying more.
Fuck off. FUCK OFF.
How about the government live within its means and stay the fuck out of the income distribution game?
FUCK OFF.
Social security is plainly an entitlement. Don't make blob come here and correct you.RaceBannon said:H has successfully argued that social security isn't an entitlement but is an income tax
So mission accomplished there
Even though that destroyed his "point"
