Tax the rich!!!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Your kids should have to work too. That's all we're saying. People should have to work for their benefits.

Bingo! We should ban charities, too, and any and all forms of welfare.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


How are you going to determine that?

Kangaroo court.

[Kuciwalker]

Kangaroos

[OzzyKP]

How old was the car? Good condition? How much was it?

[GePap]

OK, for those speaking about the definition of poverty- DEFINE WEALTH. Tell me when someone is rich.

If you can come up with a non-arbitrary definition of being rich, THEN AND ONLY THEN can you demand a non-arbitrary definition of what is poor, which is simply the opposite of rich. So when is someone rich?

Cause if not starving means you aint poor, then owning a house and two cars must certainly be considered being rich, NO?

On the ESTATE tax (not a death tax cause 98% of the population will never pay it in any way, so it most certainly is NOT a death tax), the state has all the right to tax that- the fact is, anyone seeing their inheritance being taxed will get a huge sum anyway, so the tax is hardly a burden on anyone at all. And any true massive estate will be in all sorts of forms which won't even bne taxed. So boo, hoo whatever.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
How old was the car? Good condition? How much was it?

One year old, but I owed more on the car than the car was worth.

[KrazyHorse]

You tried to buy a Jag, you nutjob?

[Kidlicious]

Ozzy,

You saw that I tried to DanS you right?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You tried to buy a Jag, you nutjob?

I was trying to DanS him. No one would sell me a Jag.

[KrazyHorse]

I figured.

I would never sell you anything.

[Japher]

On the ESTATE tax (not a death tax cause 98% of the population will never pay it in any way, so it most certainly is NOT a death tax), the state has all the right to tax that- the fact is, anyone seeing their inheritance being taxed will get a huge sum anyway, so the tax is hardly a burden on anyone at all. And any true massive estate will be in all sorts of forms which won't even bne taxed. So boo, hoo whatever.

Estate tax is easily skirtted by setting up a living trust, however. It don't cost much to do either. Thing is, not many ppl know this. IMO, poor ppl could be richer if they learned, middle class ppl can be richer if they didn't settle, and rich ppl can be richer if they pay their taxes...

Nothing is out of reach for the common folk. It is the uncommon folk that I am willing to help, even support. Those who are disabled, temporary unemployed, elderly, etc. I have no care for ppl who are to lazy to work and take advantage of an F'd up system. Fix the system and I will pay more without complaint.

I would rather take care of those ppl who are on welfare because their jackass husband knocked them up and ran out on them instead of some whore who has more babies to get more cash.

[OzzyKP]

DanS me? What does that mean?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
If you can come up with a non-arbitrary definition of being rich, THEN AND ONLY THEN can you demand a non-arbitrary definition of what is poor, which is simply the opposite of rich. So when is someone rich?

BS. Not being rich doesn't make one poor.

[GePap]

People only begtin to pay the Estate tax on estates of over $600,000 dollars. Rgith now that means a tiny portion of the population ever even has to worry, and the minimum goes up with small businesses and family farms anyway. And as I said, if you are getting an estate large enough to warrant paying the estate tax, then you have nothing to worry financially unlesss you are a stupid investor, or a habitual gambler.

I would rather take care of those ppl who are on welfare because their jackass husband knocked them up and ran out on them instead of some whore who has more babies to get more cash.

IN my job I deal with a lot of case, and usually it is single women on SSI or Disability (which means at some point they worked but no longer can), with some disability or varrying kinds, and with little living space, paying 60-80% monthly incomes in rent if they are not lucky enough to live in subsidized or public housing (which has its own problems)-the system gives a little help, but a lot of the time, it is simply a disaster: to tell 2 horror stories from the front lines:

1. In NYS, the government is supposed to provide housing for the poor with AIDS- in theory, they should be placed in medically safe emergency housing while more permanent housing is found. Well, what does the City government do? With 0 oversight from anyone, they place AIDS patients in slums, sometimes without private bathrooms, refrigerators or with leaking cellings and broken doors and windows. THEN the city pays the slumlords up to $2400 a MONTH fore 1 bedroom slums, simply becuase these are the only people willing to take them. if you don;t know, for $2400 even in NYC you can get a njice 2 bedroom in NYC at market prices.

2. NYC has about 900,000 residents who apply for food stamps. a federal program which would bring in a billion in Fed money back to NYC. Well, the City made it difficult to even apply. Many food stamp offices did not even have applications, and the ones they had were 12 pages long.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


BS. Not being rich doesn't make one poor.

then define middle class and rich, becuase only in doing so, can you define poor as well in a non-arbitrary manner.

Besides, the notion of a "middle class" is brand new. For most of history those were the two choices.