Some Sanity Coming Out of Michigan
This appeared in the Holland Sentinel and was reposted to Yahoo on Sunday...
My Take: With Trump's cult, we are way past political differences
How much longer will America slide toward the abyss? We have one political party, the Democratic Party, for all its faults, that is at least rational and sane. You very well may disagree with their political stances on various policies, but that is a far cry from where we are with the other party. The Republican Party is no longer a political party. It has become a full-fledged cult. Reminiscent of Jim Jones, Shoko Asahara or David Koresh, Donald J. Trump is now the focal point of the Republican cult.
Under no circumstances are you to question the cult leader's deity. Questioning Trump equates to instant vilification ranging from name-calling to death threats. We cannot lose the fact that we are talking about a man who once was president of the United States.
The absurdity of the cult has permeated every facet of American politics. From the federal level to local levels, America is now infested with “leaders” who still believe the 2020 election was stolen, they still believe that a secret cabal of Democrats are killing kids and drinking their blood, and that Jan. 6 was not a coup attempt. Jan. 6 to the cult is now celebrated. Their cult leader had convicted Jan. 6 insurrectionists record a song so he can now play it at his cult rallies. We even have Republicans visiting these traitors in jail as if they are heroes. This is disgusting and dangerous.
The choice America faces as 2024 rolls ever closer could not be starker. Do we want a functioning democracy, or do we want a malignant narcissist back in the office for what will be a term of vengeance and mayhem? Do we want an American president who openly swoons over Putin, Xi and Kim Jong Il, while insulting our allies and openly calling for an exit to NATO?
There is no real distention within the cult. If anything, the cult is coalescing tighter at Trump's feet, the nation be damned. Those who have tried to speak logic to the mass of sycophants are scorned as RHINOs. Anyone not in the cult is fair game for violence. A party that once stood proudly with law enforcement now has the blood of law enforcement on its hands. Nonetheless, they don’t care. If Trump wants it, they will deliver. He has become their Messiah.
It doesn’t matter what crimes Trump has been indicted on, or what crimes he may be indicted on in the future. This only feeds into their warped narrative that the deep state is out to get him, and come hell or high water, that cannot happen. He is above the law.
What is comical is the cult has an entire channel dedicated to Trump: FOX News. But under their veil of absurdity, it is out there for all to see exactly what the talking heads at FOX think of Trump. They knew the election wasn't stolen, they knew they were peddling lies, and for all the deference they paid Trump on air, behind the scenes they couldn’t stand him. This, however, is not a learned moment for the mass of sycophants. Oh no, instead, they ignore the narrative, or turn to other outlets more than willing to pander to the intellectually stunted.
America cannot tolerate this crisis any longer. The choice is as simple as it is stark. We either protect America’s democracy or we hand the keys back over to a sociopathic man who has no guiding principles except feeding his insatiable appetite for praise and adoration. His narcissistic supply is being fed by the mindless mass of “Trumpers.”
With Trump's cult, we are way past political differences. We are at a tipping point. Is America willing to allow this cult to metastasize further? If so, it will be an America none of us recognize. If not, get vocal, get involved, and vote this cancer out of every office in America before it's too late.
— Todd Leva is a resident of Zeeland.
Accurately expresses what so many Americans have been voting against since 2018.And these comments on that story is why the Trump cult loses Gen Z voters by close to 80%:
The next election is so simple. Do you want religious oppression or individual freedom? To support free Ukraine or Communist Russia? To improve working conditions for the worker or cuts to social security and Medicare? To protect the environment or let corporations pollute without repercussions? To tax and work you to death or finally tax the wealthy to pay their fair share? To let you decide if you want an abortion or let the state decide for you. To have mass shootings or responsible gun control? To be taught the history of America or just the white racist version? Do you want to restrict your right to vote or open absentee voting to give you the working person a better chance to vote?
It is simply a dictatorship trying to emerge, hiding behind a republican conservative christian front. I have read many comments from life long republicans, that say they don't recognise this republican party.
You know, I don't want unity with people who think that attacking your country to install an unelected dictator makes you a patriot. I don't want unity with people who think hate is a valid political position. I don't want unity with people who disregard the obvious truth in favor of lies that they like better. These people are the enemies of our country and our way of life. This includes you, Hannity, Carlson, Ingraham. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean you are exempt. Lying to these people for money is even worse because you know better.
America cannot tolerate this crisis any longer. The choice is as simple as it is stark. We either protect America’s democracy or we hand the keys back over to a sociopathic man who has no guiding principles except feeding his insatiable appetite for praise and adoration. His narcissistic supply is being fed by the mindless mass of “maga-ets.”
Every independent I know of is voting AGAINST the GOP. It's because of a variety of issues. But they view GOP candidates as mean-spirited and insanely hypocritical. They feel the GOP, which always advocated for less government, is actually creating more government by telling folks what they can or cannot read in their local library, interfering with the health issues of women, and other issues. Donald Trump once stated he admired the autocratic leaders of North Korea, Russia and China as doing exceptionally well at "controlling" their people -- something of which he is so ambitious to do in America. And DeSantis believes in those same principles.This is your manifesto, Valeant, and I find little in it with which I disagree.
Trumper types: better hang on to your MAGAT hats! Reasonable people are waking up and retribution is coming....Not even mine...this is what people understand about today's GOP. I think those in the Senate understand the landscape, but the rest of the GOP is all-in on Trumpism. Problem for them is that they only have the base left. Their House investigations are seen for what they are, partisan foolishness and Fox News talking points.
Everyone can see Jim Jordan as the gaslighter he is now - trying to protect domestic terrorism by lumping those same people in with the normal Americans - in essence, providing the dangerous of his party with cover by cloaking them in with the normal members of the party.
Well damn. Somebody peed in your Cheerios this morning.
GAYes, it is a sad example of Gen Z thinking... and how little they know. It is why our schools teach plenty these days about social justice and little about what is really in the world and how governments, including our own, work. The younger the generation the less they seem to know about other nations, government types, economics, etc.
I don't recall very much religious oppression during Trump's Administration.
Perhaps we are talking about his campaign rhetoric, seeking the Christian vote, not that there is anything wrong with having religious beliefs... or is there? Hard to know in today's America what is acceptable anymore.
Communist Russia?
Yeah... no.
The Democrats abandoned the American workers 30 years ago.
They do cater to Unions, as they are a source of dependable campaign funding, but the days of them championing American Middle Class workers are long gone.
Its hard to imagine that as President, Obama could say something akin to: Manufacturing Jobs Aren’t Coming Back – Then Trump Sets Record of 40,000 Manufacturing Jobs in One Month.
And yet somehow the myth of the Democrats being the party of the American worker still persists.
Kind of like now, when the lies of the Ukraine conflict are exposed, yet no one wants to hold the Biden Administration accountable, instead, they focus on the kid who exposed those lies to the sunlight?
Or are we talking about how through Executive Orders we are forcing people to accept men as women, as accepting lies as truth?'Yes, it is a sad example of Gen Z thinking... and how little they know. It is why our schools teach plenty these days about social justice and little about what is really in the world and how governments, including our own, work. The younger the generation the less they seem to know about other nations, government types, economics, etc.'
Or it could be the pompousness of the older generations to talk down to a generation they think knows nothing, despite being engaged in the political conversations of the day.
'I don't recall very much religious oppression during Trump's Administration. Perhaps we are talking about his campaign rhetoric, seeking the Christian vote, not that there is anything wrong with having religious beliefs... or is there? Hard to know in today's America what is acceptable anymore.'
No issues with having religious beliefs. The problem comes in when your religious beliefs are the source of your government policy and force others to live under those doctrines - such as freedom of choice and gay marriage.
'Communist Russia? Yeah... no.'
Yeah, that commenter got that one wrong. It's a straight up dictatorship that Trump and his supporters wish to enact here in the United States.
'The Democrats abandoned the American workers 30 years ago.'
And yet, whose policies overwhelmingly favor the rich and business class of America? Certainly not the Democrats. Child tax credits, free community college, student loan debt relief. These are all to help the middle class build generational wealth.
'Kind of like now, when the lies of the Ukraine conflict are exposed, yet no one wants to hold the Biden Administration accountable, instead, they focus on the kid who exposed those lies to the sunlight? Or are we talking about how through Executive Orders we are forcing people to accept men as women, as accepting lies as truth?'
Pretty sure we've known all along our government was supporting Ukraine. Not sure what lies are there that you think we all weren't aware of. It's not some big scandal that our country is assisting Ukraine to keep it's democracy.
As for accepting men as women, you often rant here about that. It's pretty clear that you will never except someone's choice on gender or understand how those people feel. The GOP sure does want parents to have rights on how to raise their children and what they get taught, but then wants to interfere with the family rights in gender choices. If they aren't straight, god-loving Christians, there seems to be some policy the GOP wants to enact to force you to be just that. I don't care if you're gay, straight, trans, black, white, redneck, gun-loving - you do you, it does not matter to me how you want to live your life to be happy. There is certainly some discussion to have between gender and sex and policy there with regard to sport and sharing restrooms, but those that cannot even bother to accept someone else's choice on gender are just bigots in my own eyes. And there's a lot of bigotry directed at the LGBQT+ community these days.
"To tax and work you to death or finally tax the wealthy to pay their fair share?"
I would rather support myself than use forced charity from others. Including the rich.
"To let you decide if you want an abortion or let the state decide for you."
I would rather have a sane debate and decision on when humans come to exist than simply murder children at will.
"To have mass shootings or responsible gun control?"
I would rather have an honest investigation into why we are so violent and then try to fix it than lose our rights for nothing.
"To be taught the history of America or just the white racist version?"
I would rather be taught ALL of history, not just the part that demonizes anyone with light skin.
"Do you want to restrict your right to vote or open absentee voting to give you the working person a better chance to vote?"
I prefer secure voting for all, ignoring Democrat claims that there is never a problem so nothing need be checked in favor of reasonable security.'I would rather support myself than use forced charity from others. Including the rich.'
So you don't see a need for police, teachers, or firemen. It's not charity, it's called supporting services to make a healthy community.
'I would rather have a sane debate and decision on when humans come to exist than simply murder children at will.'
First, you have to be sane enough to understand that children is a plural of the word child, which is someone between the ages of birth and puberty. Clearly, there is already a disconnect with understanding basic definitions. So this falls under when religion or science deems life to begin. Good luck getting those two entities to have that sane conversation.
'I would rather have an honest investigation into why we are so violent and then try to fix it than lose our rights for nothing.'
The extremist goes right to the extreme to think that losing that right is the only solution to responsible gun control.
'I would rather be taught ALL of history, not just the part that demonizes anyone with light skin.'
To teach all of that history means facing the good and the bad of your own history. Not sure the right can face the bad. It's the same thing we see with the current Trump cult. Anything that reflects badly on them, they fabricate their own narrative to avoid facing the hard truths. Bunch of snowflakes.
'I prefer secure voting for all, ignoring Democrat claims that there is never a problem so nothing need be checked in favor of reasonable security.'
The Democrats use the fact that things are checked to make the claim that mass levels of fraud do not exist. That's where your logic and omission of what actually happens (again, because it annihilates your alternate reality) is so very, very flawed."So you don't see a need for police, teachers, or firemen. It's not charity, it's called supporting services to make a healthy community."
I do. What you don't seem to accept is we ALL have a responsibility to help with those things, not just the rich. We do not own the wealth of the rich - it belongs to them - and we have no moral or ethical right to simply take it away from them because we don't want to help out with the needs of the nation.
"First, you have to be sane enough to understand that children is a plural of the word child, which is someone between the ages of birth and puberty."
A great (GREAT!) many people will disagree with you, including me (although a zygote is not a child and neither is a month old fetus). Perhaps it is you that is insane not to recognize that fact (and I, but that is another story).
"The extremist goes right to the extreme to think that losing that right is the only solution to responsible gun control."
Guess that's the difference; I recognize little to no further need to control guns. Control the violence, on the other hand, and the death toll will end; attempt to control the guns again and nothing will change. I prefer actual results to political grandstanding and breast beating.
"To teach all of that history means facing the good and the bad of your own history."
Oh, I think they can, and at least as well as the bleeding hearts of the left do. But I meant what I said: teach that blacks owned black slaves in this country as well as others. Teach that Indians kept slaves. Teach it ALL, not just what the bleeding hearts find useful to denigrate one race with.
Democrats check almost nothing, just make the claim. And that is a problem with me, for they are forever claiming "No problem, no need to check or secure anything!". That they pretend to care, while making voting possible for non-citizens to control the US peoples, says it all.'I do. What you don't seem to accept is we ALL have a responsibility to help with those things, not just the rich. We do not own the wealth of the rich - it belongs to them - and we have no moral or ethical right to simply take it away from them because we don't want to help out with the needs of the nation.'
Actually, we own portions of the wealth of all people in the form of taxes that exist to have healthy communities. And the government, over the years, has determined that different income ranges can pay different rates on that income. You may have a different view, but historically, that has been the accepted norm.
'A great (GREAT!) many people will disagree with you, including me (although a zygote is not a child and neither is a month old fetus). Perhaps it is you that is insane not to recognize that fact (and I, but that is another story).'
A great many people disagree on the dictionary definition of the word child? That's the argument you're basing the sane versus insane on? Seems right on par with the irrationality of the far-right we see day in and day out in this country. Basic truths are not so basic to them.
'Guess that's the difference; I recognize little to no further need to control guns. Control the violence, on the other hand, and the death toll will end; attempt to control the guns again and nothing will change. I prefer actual results to political grandstanding and breast beating.'
I'm willing to meet you halfway here as there is some validity to the violent programming people are getting. Hollywood is especially bad in this regard. But to think that anyone has the ability or training to handle a gun responsibly without training or licensing as we do with such dangerous things as cars and planes is where we differ.
'Oh, I think they can, and at least as well as the bleeding hearts of the left do. But I meant what I said: teach that blacks owned black slaves in this country as well as others. Teach that Indians kept slaves. Teach it ALL, not just what the bleeding hearts find useful to denigrate one race with.'
That some white people feel singled out because the majority of slave owners were white is just the usual victim complex we see from any race when they are attacked for their historical bad behaviors.
'Democrats check almost nothing, just make the claim.'
That statement exists in some alternate reality of the uninformed and isn't even worth the time to continue engaging. You might as well have said the 2020 election was stolen.'Oh, I think they can, and at least as well as the bleeding hearts of the left do. But I meant what I said: teach that blacks owned black slaves in this country as well as others. Teach that Indians kept slaves.
------------
But also teach that in perspective that around 1/2 of 1 percent of blacks own slaves so there really is no question that you are trying to draw some sort of equivalency that simply does not exist. It is still remains a white controlled caste system against black people.Be sure to include the percentage of white people owning slaves, both worldwide and in the US.
This was not something to dance around the margins over. There were enough of the slave power to drive a civil war between the states. So it was not about the numbers over the relative power and influence of slave holders and their catastrophic behavior toward those held in bondage. That, too needs to be taught. We are speaking about America and American history, empty, insignificant comparisons do not take anything from the main theme.
I get that you think you own what the rich have earned. I just disagree - the perpetual cry for "fair" taxation has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with greed as we take whatever we want from those with more than we do. Legal and government approved, yes - moral and ethical a resounding "NO!". A big difference of opinion.
I agree with you that training will save some lives. It will also cost lives as we train killers to shoot straight. Licensing will do nothing but slow the process, and the cost discourage some, solid citizens from buying a gun...while killers still get them, for they care not one iota about the law or licensing. That is something that you seem to either forget or intentionally ignore; that criminals, particularly killers, will have the guns whether you pass laws denying the purchase or not. Just think how many of the inner city pistols (the vast majority of gun murder tools) are owned illegally.
Problem with the whites being singled out is that the sins of the fathers are being passed to the child. In my world that concept makes no sense at all.
To some degree it was stolen, though not at the ballot box. Some fraud, yes, and very likely more than normal (suddenly mailing ballots to everyone will do that, regardless of Democrats again claiming there is no problem). But if it was stolen it was by unceasing efforts, legal and not so much, by Democrats to hurt Trump. Never have we seen such efforts made to remove a political opponent as the pogrom that Democrats launched against him. My prediction is that we will see the results of that for years and decades to come as every candidate is put through similar efforts. (How many times have you heard that Biden needs to be impeached?)'I get that you think you own what the rich have earned.'
Not at all what I said, but as usual, you distort words in a ridiculous way to fabricate a position that does not exist for others. When this begins, it's time to end the conversation because all that happens is a defense of those delusions.Sorry, Valeant, but it is exactly what you said. You even provided evidence in that the government has made laws that say you do own it. Here; I'll even quote your post in case you've forgotten it:
"Actually, we own portions of the wealth of all people in the form of taxes that exist to have healthy communities."
"We own portions of the wealth of all people". There can be no mistaking that you think you own what others have earned. No mis-communication, no error. You made it crystal clear.Sorry, Dan. Where did I mention just the rich in that post that you responded to?
We the people take some of the wealth of all people in the form of taxation. That's a fact that I made crystal clear in my post that you tried to distort as some attack on just the rich. And as expected, you're trying to die on a hill of your own distortions. This type of pettiness is not worth any more of my time.Hmm. I would have included the rich in the group of all people. You don't? Is that how you get by taking millions from one person and none from another? That the "rich" is a different group and therefore you can do as you wish?
But you're right in one thing; it is not worth my time to reply to someone that can't remember what they said, or tries to change it to something else when called out on it.
You have a great day.'I get that you think you own what the rich have earned.'
I have no problem with what I said, I just have zero patience for someone who changes the words 'all people' to 'the rich,' omits the word 'portions' and then completely leaves out the decades of accepted justification this country has, and currently uses, to try and sell a stance that they believe others have because they always try and frame others all the way to the extremes.
"We own portions of the wealth of all people". There can be no mistaking that you think you own what others have earned. No mis-communication, no error. You made it crystal clear."
Very simply stated that everyone should pay their fair share. The government should extract equally from us all. No free lunch for billionaires.Yep. With "fair" being millions from one person and zero from another...and both getting exactly the same thing for their money. "No free lunch" means "no free lunch" for everyone, not just a few that have more than you do.
Billionaires in the US pay a smaller tax rate than most thanks to a tax code that favors income from wealth over income from work. And with a slew of tax-avoidance strategies the richest among us end up paying a smaller percentage of their income to the federal government than most working families. That’s not paying your fair share. Instead of our tax system rewarding wealth over work, it should ensure that billionaires play by the same set of rules as the rest of us. it’s essential to the preservation of our democracy.
Billionaires among us pay a million times what you pay. But it isn't enough, is it? It's not "fair" for them to only pay a million times what you pay...for the same thing.
Back up for this statement? You're saying they pay the same tax rate? Our imbalanced tax code means that many millionaires and billionaires end up paying lower tax rates than middle class workers. Your claims aren't backed up on reality.
I did not mention tax rate. I spoke of the actual money they paid, the dollars that we took from them.
I don't buy bread or cars or houses or anything else by a percentage of my income...why am I buying the right to be an American by a percentage rather than a dollar amount...and then having people say it isn't fair that I paid only a million times what they paid.
Rudely butting in . . . You posted several requests for 'specifics' of Rightwing claims, so turnabout is fair play. What is, specifically, the rich's fair share?
In almost any monetary aspect, the reality of contributory dollars is more important than the perception of percentage dollars.
The government created the tax schedules the rich follow. Does that make the government's determination of their "fair share" unfair?
GAYes. The government has created changes in tax policy that have tended to favor the highest-income taxpayers. Legislation has reduced tax rates on corporations, private businesses, capital gains and dividends, and on inherited wealth. In other words, we have reduced tax rates on the forms of income and assets that are particularly important to the wealthy. We have a tax code that favors income from wealth over income from work and a slew of tax-avoidance strategies. The richest among us end up paying a smaller percentage of their income to the federal government than most working families.
It's like porn, isn't it? You can't define 'fair share,' but you know it when you see it, right?
Now, just a little bit of sarcasm was intended, just a little poke, because it seems the statements are true. For years that 'fair share' question has been unanswerable. At least, I have never heard it defined. And you avoided it too.
So, if it is fair for you to define an equitable fair rate based on what you think it should be, it shouldn't be wrong for those that disagree to use the same reasoning.
From the other side's reasonably fair view (remember it's the same as your reasonably fair view) demanding the rich pay more than required isn't a demand for a fair share, it's a demand for 'more' because you (generic) want more, not because the nation needs more.
GA
If a 'supposed' billionaire can end up paying just $800 in taxes a year, I think JMickels has a point about the system. I increased my income with investing last year and yet ended up paying a tax rate of zero actual dollars this year because half of my dividends are tax exempted for being in American companies. In essence, because I am able to make money from money and not use any labor, and the government has so many loopholes on wealth from that means, my tax rate is relatively zero.
In essence, the government is encouraging you to invest in American companies rather than foreign ones, via creative use of the tax code.
While I highly disagree with using the tax code to encourage compliance with what government has deemed useful or good for the country, I also recognize that it is a fact of life and that demonizing those that use these "encouragements" doesn't make sense.I’m a multimillionaire: On this Tax Day, I demand to be taxed more
Politicians and pundits like to say that millionaires deserve tax cuts over working people because they will use their savings to create jobs, raise wages and grow the economy.
I am a multimillionaire CEO who started and ran a manufacturing company, and I can say from first-hand experience that those politicians and pundits are dead wrong. Quite honestly, I think it is just self-serving nonsense that helps justify our absurdly low tax burden.
When my wealthy peers receive their windfalls on Tax Day, they do not, by and large, take their tax savings and reinvest them back into their companies to create jobs or raise wages. Instead, they keep them all to themselves for the simple reason that they can.
All available evidence backs me up. Over the last five decades, at no point have tax cuts for the rich worked to create jobs or spur growth. Instead, they have only served to increase the ever-growing gap between the rich and the rest. Today, the top 1 percent of earners in America take home no less than 20 percent of the nation’s income. Meanwhile, 11.6 million children live in poverty and over half the country lives paycheck to paycheck. This is not an accident but rather an inevitable consequence of decades upon decades of unnecessary and misguided tax breaks for wealthy people like me.
On this Tax Day, I want to ask — nay, demand — that lawmakers end this
mess and tax the rich. Spending is not our nation’s problem, revenue (taxes, or a lack thereof) is our problem.
Don’t get me wrong: I don’t want to pay taxes any more than the next person, particularly my fellow millionaires. And the reason I don’t want to pay taxes is the same as everyone else’s: I am greedy. I want to keep every dollar that I make for myself.
But I part with most millionaires in this country in two important ways. First, I have enough self-awareness to recognize the limitations of greed. When I have too much money and average working people — i.e. my potential customers — don’t have enough, that could spell disaster for my business. I need my customers to have enough money in their pockets to be able to buy my products. For this reason, if anyone should get a tax break, I want it to be them.
Second, most millionaires that I meet genuinely want to do good with their fortunes and give back to their communities. But unlike them, I understand that governments of all types — federal, state and local — serve society in ways that I and other wealthy people cannot. Despite our best efforts and intentions, the rich could never feed and house the less fortunate. We could never educate the masses. We could never build roads, bridges and other infrastructure that society needs to grow and prosper. We could never fight wars (many of which, if not most, we shouldn’t even fight in the first place). Whether we like it or not, only the government — with its reach, organization and power — can do these things.
If we want to get serious about lifting the position of the worst-off in America and changing our economy for the better, the first thing we need to do is get serious about fixing the tax code. We need to do away with the lower rates and special loopholes and exemptions that allow billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos to sometimes pay literally nothing in taxes. There is only so much good that rich people can do with money, and I want our tax code to start reflecting that reality.
But we can’t stop at home. Tax injustice and economic inequality are problems in all G20 countries, so changing the rules in just one place unfortunately won’t do the trick. We need global collaboration and coordination to avoid capital flight and share data, and this should begin in the countries that hold the most wealth.
We should also begin the process of instituting a global tax on wealth: A recent analysis conducted by the Fight Inequality Alliance, Institute for Policy Studies, Oxfam and the Patriotic Millionaires (an organization of which I am a proud member) found that a tax of up to 5 percent on multimillionaire and billionaire wealth could generate a staggering $1.7 trillion dollars annually, which could then be used to address pressing global concerns like poverty, food insecurity and climate change.
I believe economic inequality is the greatest crisis of our time. All the other crises facing our world — inflation, climate change, media manipulation, corruption, political polarization, etc. — can all be directly and indirectly traced back to it. That said, lawmakers should throw all their energies into tackling extreme wealth concentration, and they should take their first step in this fight by reforming tax codes worldwide.
I am a greedy millionaire who is concerned about myself and the rest of the world. Tax cuts for rich people like me have never, and will never, save us. In this spirit, on this year’s Tax Day, I say emphatically: Tax me.
Stephen Prince founded Card Marketing Services in 1993 and is vice-chair of the Patriotic Millionair
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/395 … axed-more/You do indeed sound like someone that cares about others and about the country. You are willing to donate more towards the needs of the country in order that everyone else need not give so much.
BUT...does that mean we have the ethical or moral right to demand that everyone with more wealth also do as you would; do we have the right to forcibly take what they have earned to satisfy your goals?
I submit that we do not.'Nay, he demands . . .'
He won't volunteer to pay more, nay, he demands to be required to pay more.
Yep, that's the ticket.
GA
And consider, you didn't break any laws and it sounds like you kept the money. Were you true to your point you would have paid extra to be sure you paid your own fair share.
GAI set aside a significant amount for my fair share and was informed that that amount was not required. That money will be invested to grow my own wealth - in essence, the rich get richer without paying their share. Which is the actual point of what we're getting at. The money is there, the money is expected to be paid to help the government, but the government does not ask for it, despite there being a significant need for it when it is running huge deficits. And if it's not asked for, it is not given.
We don't "ask" for taxes to be paid; we demand it, at the point of a gun if necessary.
But not getting it if not demanded under force of law would seem to indicate that the person does not wish to pay it. If they did, there is a spot on the 1040 to give donations not required.Not entirely we don't. Over a third of my income sources for this past year was not taxed. I was prepared in case that third would have been taxed, but it was not so like most I will use that money to grow my own wealth further.
As for the spot on the 1040 for donations/charitable contributions - are you claiming that is a spot to donate money to the government?Try not paying your taxes and see if they are "demanded". Go further, telling the IRS to pound sand, an see if you are at the business end of a gun.
No, the spot isn't for that. Pretty sure I saw something about contributing towards lowering the deficit. (With the advent of online tax forms I'm not sure any more, but there used to be.)Thank you for the suggestions about not paying taxes, but I like to follow the law.
None of that works. If you set that money aside, prepared to pay because it was your calculated fair share, but didn't because you weren't asked, and used that 'kept' money to further enrich yourself, doesn't not paying it make you the same as the evil rich that also evade paying their fair share? I don't think you would think you are 'one of them.'
And the 'not asking for it' part? The government didn't ask because it was offering. Offering money for the things Wilderness has previously described—government-desired behavior of some manner.
GAI'm arguing the other side. The government should absolutely be taxing my incomes and what I showed was that I was prepared to pay taxes on all my incomes.
'The government didn't ask because it wasn't offering?' You always say a lot of cryptic things that you truly believe will make sense to everyone else - but the reality is that it often doesn't.Sorry about the sloppiness. Correctly, I said, "The government didn't ask because it was offering." Hopefully, that makes more sense.
It was offering tax breaks if the taxpayer does something the government wants. With no inference of good or bad, that's simply the concept of our system.
Once again with no good or bad inference, if a taxpayer owes and is prepared to pay, and for whatever reason a tax break is offered—one designed to benefit both sides, it's a win-win.
My point was that the government didn't ask you for that extra money because it was offering you a discount because of something you did.
That concept seems logical and rational to me. The judgments of right or wrong or fair don't come into play until the details of the exchange become the focus—instead of the concept those details populate.
Most of us would probably have a lot of problems with a lot of the government's offered tax breaks (particularly the corrupt and discriminatory ones), but we shouldn't condemn the concept.
What if 'Buffett' spent a billion dollars giving to charities focused on needy neighborhoods' improvement and early education programs for those most in need, because the government encouraged him with tax breaks, should he be condemned or applauded? I bet the folks that benefitted in those neighborhoods and schools would applaud.
GAHe is more esoteric than Esoteric for sure.
This article is why President Biden's approval numbers are meaningless. The two republican presidents we have had in the last four administrations both lost the popular vote. If the wishes of the majority of Americans are upheld in the future, we may well never have a republican president ever again.
This shrinking minority that makes up the GOP have shown themselves to represent ideas that America steadfastly refuses: anti-abortion, anti-immigration, anti-voting rights, anti-inclusion of minorities, anti-climate change, anti-tax increases for the top 1%, and pro-guns.
It does not matter on a day-to-day basis what the President's approval ratings are. Does he have flaws? Yes. But - He's not a republican. That seems to be what matters.The only one in that list of "anti's" that has any truth to it is the anti-immigration, and that one only when referencing the Democrat concept of "Come one, com all! We will provide whatever you need!" when it comes to immigration.
It is true that the GOP does not view us as the dumping ground for the world's poor, the uneducated, and the unskilled.
If only one is actually true, ya'll have a serious PR problem because common knowledge is that they are all true.
Related Discussions
- 28
GOP Past Versus GOP Future: Who Wins?
by J Conn 2 years ago
Right now, there appears to be a battle being waged in the Republican Party in two different factions.The first faction is the Mitch McConnell wing, who has clearly moved on from the 2020 election and has accepted what happened on January 6 and wants to shine the spotlight on weak areas within the...
- 172
Has Donald Trump Killed the So-Called Republican Party?
by Scott Belford 7 weeks ago
In my opinion, yes - the Republican Party no-longer exists today even though Trump followers incorrectly refer to themselves as Republicans.Let me open this discussion with a short tutorial of the Republican Party (now keep in mind, the Party title has no bearing on the Party philosophy and any...
- 20
Why Do A Majority Of Black American's Vote Democratic?
by Sharlee 3 days ago
The historical bond between the Democratic Party and the Black community in the United States is rich and complex, marked by pivotal moments and initiatives, particularly in the 1960s, that underscore Democrats' support for Black citizens. In this brief overview, I will present a condensed timeline...
- 23
What do you think is good and/or bad about Donald Trump running for President?
by H C Palting 7 years ago
What do you think is good and/or bad about Donald Trump running for President?
- 71
Liz Cheney: 2024 Spoiler
by ga anderson 20 months ago
A recently heard speculation has ex-Rep. Cheney running for president in 2024—as an Independent candidate. The idea is to split the vote as Perot did.One prompt for that thought was the huge war chest she has and how little she spent on her reelection campaign. The reasoning is that she would be a...
- 13
The Right, Conservatives, Republicans prefer Autocracy over Democracy?
by Credence2 2 years ago
I find this topic most disturbing as it is a reflection of the goals and aspirations of the American Right wing movement. There is no such thing as it being "fringe" as Trump, Carlson and many Republican Senators avoided direct answers or said that the Orbanz authoritarian regime in...