Your support and vote for people that support entitlements for everyone is “giving things away”.
Revenue Models & Tax Theory
- Thread starter FLaw47
- Start date
My point is that charter school kids are not the same kids as public school kids. They have parents who took enough of an interest to get them into a different school and have the ability to transport them there (often). And even charter schools getting kids who are already more likely to succeed, charter schools on the whole perform no better than public schools.
I don’t know how you can complain about illiteracy in Chicago and respond to posts the way you have here.
What do you call taking money from people that work and giving it to people that do not?
Not beating the only marginally literate allegations here.
"It's lowest annual murder total in decades." lol.
Way to put lipstick on that pig. Polish that turd.
Aren't you constantly touting how inflation is better than it was under Biden and "trending in the right direction" while it's still above the Fed target and the pre-covid inflation rates?
I’m not writing prose, I am expressing myself, I love how you guys always go to grammar. lol. You still haven’t answered the question ironically, you’re literacy isn’t great either.
I don't think he was remarking about your grammar.
A very poor comparison. I'm glad they are trending in the right direction, but honestly it's pathetic how bad they let crime get. It's still awful. People get robbed in my neighborhood 2-3 times a week.
So when you are responsible for letting the crime get out of control, almost to the worst level in the nation, you don't get to pat yourself on the back.
The difference is that Trump did not get inflation to record high levels, that was MMT and Bidenomics. Trump was cleaning up that mess. I don't need to remind you that the number one issue in the election was inflation. And Biden did not show enough concern on inflation and it cost democrats the election.
Trump is in danger of hitting the same trap right now. Its impossible for inflation to stay where it is now with oil above say $75. If oil does not come down, and come down quickly, Trump will lose his base and republicans will get trounced in midterms. People are tired of inflation, it's the invisible tax.
Your analagy is poor because Trump was not responsible for the inflation that Biden could not get rid of. (Remember they drained the SPR to try and keep inflation down going into the election? I remember)
What tax rate do you consider to be immoral? For example, is taxing at a 100% rate moral? 50%? Where does one draw the line that taxation is not for social safety, it is theft?
I personally think confiscating over 30% of ones work is akin to theft. I believe in safety nets, i don't believe in communism.
Was the current administration "responsible" for the murder rate in Chicago? Or are you fine lumping them all in because it was the same party?
Didn't the pandemic start under Trump and didn't he do a lot to sow distrust and make the pandemic recovery worse?
The analogy is fine, it's just inconvenient to you.
Can you cite a country where there's a social safety net and no government "theft"?
I'm sure you are aware that democrats control Chicago. Lori Lightfoot was soft on crime. Brandon Johnson is soft on crime. This is not debatable, just look at the crime stats. So, I'm fine lumping them together. The crime is bad and they both suck at keeping crime low. Democrats no cash bail law certainly doesn't help either.
Did Trump do a lot to sow distrust and make the recovery worse? No, he did not. The news media did that. Hydrox is horse paste! The winter of death is coming! They altered joe rogans color to make him look sick. They tried to start an office of misinformation. Covid had an 8% lethality rate! Donald Trump was not the problem.
Your analogy sucks. Go back to the drawing board.
No and that is why we should keep the social safety nets as small as possible.
You are asking to tax me for something that you can't guarantee is honest and, from just your attitude, you don't even care to try and fix it.
NO THANK YOU.
Lower taxes, small government.
Yeah this is the sort of post that makes me think it's not worth discussing things with you. I can't debate someone who is allowed to create their own reality.
Got it, so you don't believe in a safety net. Why not just be honest? Are you afraid of people knowing what you're really like?
So you are ok with 100% taxation?
I don't think you have thought that through. There would be total anarchy if someone tried to tax at 100%. The government would cease to exist as we know it.
You see how many posts i have and the information i share about myself makes me easily identifiable. Many people in here know who i am in real life and you think i am scared of people knowing what i am really like? Cmon flaw
And i love how you pretend to be so intellectually honest and then you take my "Keep the safety nets as small as possible" and jump to "So you don't believe in safety nets". Clown.
You refused to cite a country that's palatable to you and said you wanted guarantees there'd be no fraud, which is impossible. You can say you're for a "small safety net" as much as you want but all of the evidence suggests you don't want one.
EDIT: to be fair, I shouldn't have said "you don't believe in safety nets" I should have said "you're not practically supportive of one". I don't care if you "believe in" a thing if you fight tooth and nail to prevent it.
You are just figuring this out? Fatpiggy is somewhere around 75% troll. He's not a reasonable guy. This is the type of guy that when Trump posts a picture of apes with Obama's picture on it, he tells you with a straight face that that is not racist AND THEN tells you that Michelle Obama saying she supports businesses owned by people of color IS racist. Next week when gas prices really start to rise, be prepared for him to tell you that even though the price at the pump is higher, that doesn't REALLY mean prices are higher.
here's the thing about the safety net...we need to define it....I don't think anybody is against having a safety net. But the debate comes in what exactly does that entail? It's estimated that if a person takes advantage of all the social programs it equates to an annual income of anywhere from $80-90,000/year. Granted that not everyone collects from every program, because needs are different.
Our problem, IMO, is that we create programs and then it becomes nearly impossible to later review them and cut when it's determined not to be working as planned. Our default is to add more money to the problem rather than go back and relook if the money we're spending is being used wisely.
To me, it all comes back to the fact that our government is too big to manage
Yes she was soft on crime
Key trends during her time in office included an initial decline in overall crime in 2019, followed by sharp spikes in homicides and shootings in 2020-2021 (coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic and civil unrest), and then gradual decreases in violent crime from 2022 onward. However, property crimes surged significantly in 2022-2023, contributing to higher total index crimes (a standard measure including violent and property offenses like homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault/battery, burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson).Arrest rates generally declined early in her tenure before rebounding slightly, with low clearance rates for many crimes persisting throughout. Victim demographics consistently showed disproportionate impacts on African American communities, who accounted for around 75-80% of homicide victims across these years.
That's fine but maybe we could have another thread on that?
We've talked very little about the ideas that I laid out and also haven't added new ones.
I've got one for you...when I was driving back in the '60s, gallon of gas was $.30. That in 2026 dollars is $2.66. So when we're under $3/gal, we're really not paying much more than we did in 1969
It sure seems like "Estate & Gift Taxes" are way too low considering that they're one of the more efficient taxes you can do. "Health" and "Income Security" were both bigger than I was expecting but I also think that the bulk of our government spending should be on general welfare.
I'd just like to be clear that it's my money that we're spending, too. I think I should pay more in taxes and I already pay more than most.
Please do not inform me that I can donate to pay down the debt.
I'll give you somewhere i differ from most in my party.
Why not a stiff inheritance tax? It seems fair to me, hear me out.
1) You are the best steward of your money, not the government. You will be much more responsible managing, investing, and spending your own money than the government, so it makes sense for you to hold onto that money for as long as possible.
2) It's progressive. The more you gained from society, the more you will pay.
3) Children don't need to inherit vast sums of money. a) It makes them entitled b) They have done nothing to prove they are efficient at capital allocation like those who earned the money. c) It levels the playing field for children and get's us to a merit based society.
4) If you know your money will be taxed when you die, this would entice you to spend your money now. This could be a boom to economic activity.
There are downsides. Family cohesion is important, taxing inheritance may disrupt that. I know farms struggle with inheritance taxes. Large tax bills can disrupt family businesses. But maybe solutions can be found for these.
And to be clear, i want the inheritance tax to replace many of the taxes we currently pay, not in addition too.
edit: I wrote this before reading your post above.
Last edited:
I may not mind paying more in taxes if i knew the progams were honest and efficient. As it is, i think our government is rife with corruption (I do not limit this to one party) and i take steps to minimize my tax bill.
I do think it's a problem when the largest check i write every year is to the government. And it's not very close.
How long should one person need said safety net? What’s a reasonable amount of time to you to find a job? 6 months? Do you think one person should be on welfare for 3-4 years??