The Economist nails it
Comments
-
You're denying it in two threads todayHHusky said:
The rich pay a lot of taxes. Never denied it. Said it myself here.RaceBannon said:
Really?HHusky said:
But highly taxed.RaceBannon said:
The old man and the seaHHusky said:
I'm a net maker. Let's revisit it in a few years.PurpleThrobber said:
You should try it on your old ass self.HHusky said:
Because euthanizing the elderly was an even less popular option.RaceBannon said:
Then why cut it?HHusky said:
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"
You however, are a leach on society
In America?
Let H go long enough and he'll defeat his own argument
So you do want to raise taxes on the poor
Case closed -
Tax shitty attorneys at 199%.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. -
Your insecurity around income tax rates says otherwise.HHusky said:
The rich pay a lot of taxes. Never denied it. Said it myself here.RaceBannon said:
Really?HHusky said:
But highly taxed.RaceBannon said:
The old man and the seaHHusky said:
I'm a net maker. Let's revisit it in a few years.PurpleThrobber said:
You should try it on your old ass self.HHusky said:
Because euthanizing the elderly was an even less popular option.RaceBannon said:
Then why cut it?HHusky said:
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"
You however, are a leach on society
In America?
Let H go long enough and he'll defeat his own argument -
I don’t give a shit what stupid point you are trying to make here, but I will take every cent I can of the money that was stolen from me. I’ll never be made whole, but it’s something.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" -
SameMikeDamone said:
I don’t give a shit what stupid point you are trying to make here, but I will take every cent I can of the money that was stolen from me. I’ll never be made whole, but it’s something.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"
-
Don't worry the grab will only ever effect the very rich. Until they need more of your tax dollars to waste and then the trickle down to the middle class will come.
He’ll crack first. I’ve seen it before.RaceBannon said:
Really?HHusky said:
But highly taxed.RaceBannon said:
The old man and the seaHHusky said:
I'm a net maker. Let's revisit it in a few years.PurpleThrobber said:
You should try it on your old ass self.HHusky said:
Because euthanizing the elderly was an even less popular option.RaceBannon said:
Then why cut it?HHusky said:
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"
You however, are a leach on society
In America?
Let H go long enough and he'll defeat his own argument -
Did you talk to your father, the retired public school teacher, about this?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.
Not sure if he’s still around.
If he is, please advise him to donate your portion of his estate to the federal government.
Ever consider another option: less government and much fewer government employees.
Since you’re a real Conservative, self-proclaimed Reagan afficianado, just wanted to tell you, I’m from the government and I’m here to help.
-
I like your ideas. Let’s try the taxes you suggest on the legal profession.HHusky said:
Assuming you’re talking about some sort of “fairness” concept, it should be pointed out that the appreciation on these assets was never taxed and that large estates are primarily composed of appreciated assets.Kaepsknee said:
So you believe that people should be taxed even more again when inheriting property or other assets that were ultimately paid for with after tax dollars in the first place.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.
Brilliant.
Since approximately 70% of them in the world are in the United States and they contribute little, if anything, to the common good, let’s start there. You in? -
Life isn’t “fair” and the Government will never make it that way.HHusky said:
Assuming you’re talking about some sort of “fairness” concept, it should be pointed out that the appreciation on these assets was never taxed and that large estates are primarily composed of appreciated assets.Kaepsknee said:
So you believe that people should be taxed even more again when inheriting property or other assets that were ultimately paid for with after tax dollars in the first place.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.
Brilliant.
All you have to do is look at our career politicians, almost all lawyers. Who do they look out for, first and foremost?
Grow the fuck up!
-
I used to subscribe to the economist and really enjoyed it. then a few years back it started to have stupid takes and was way biased. I saw this link below recently and it makes sense. All the worst things seem to have the same people associated with them, at some point it’s not coincidence.
https://www.politico.eu/article/agnellis-rothschilds-close-in-on-economist-magazine-sale-pearson/
