ok, so did Donald Trump win or lose in this election?

[Wonkie]

is today qmas eve?

[ScaringChildren]

Originally Posted by Wonkie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

is today qmas eve?

Q is just a random anon fucking with gullible Trump supporters.

I'd wish they'd learn that. It's embarrassing.

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by ScaringChildren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Q is just a random anon fucking with gullible Trump supporters.

I'd wish they'd learn that. It's embarrassing.

just tell me what's sposed to happen tomorrow so I can understand the melties

[mickmoranis]

trump gonna lowe rmy taxes 10% and thats for Me cus he loves us, god bless him.

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

trump gonna lowe rmy taxes 10% and thats for Me cus he loves us, god bless him.

Proportional to income, so a scool teacher in Indiana will get an extra tank of gas every year. Or whatever state Ryan used in his powerpoint poster in the congressional floor.

[AzzarTheGod]

the personal income tax has gotta go its just to keep people in their place.

taxes need to be levied on those not living check to check

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by AzzarTheGod [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

the personal income tax has gotta go its just to keep people in their place.

taxes need to be levied on those not living check to check

If Republicans actually believed their own BS -- they would have eliminated taxes for the working middle and poor a long time ago. Not to mention they would have targeted income tax for cuts....not god damn capital gains.

[Raev]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If Republicans actually believed their own BS -- they would have eliminated taxes for the working middle and poor a long time ago. Not to mention they would have targeted income tax for cuts....not god damn capital gains.

Let's be real here: the poor and even quite some of the middle class are already in net negative tax territory when you add in the social net benefits. Romney may have lost the election, but he wasn't wrong when he said that having over 50% of voters be net tax recipients is a recipe for disaster, and it's been well known for quite some time:

Originally Posted by Alexander Fraser Tytler

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the canidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy--to be followed by a dictatorship.

In your opinion, would 0% up to $50K, 15% after that, no deductions, and you can't vote if you don't pay at least 5% of your income in taxes? Remember, if the remaining taxpayers vote for candidates that cut benefits, there will be more net tax payers voting.

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Let's be real here: the poor and even quite some of the middle class are already in net negative tax territory when you add in the social net benefits. Romney may have lost the election, but he wasn't wrong when he said that having over 50% of voters be net tax recipients is a recipe for disaster, and it's been well known for quite some time:


In your opinion, would 0% up to $50K, 15% after that, no deductions, and you can't vote if you don't pay at least 5% of your income in taxes? Remember, if the remaining taxpayers vote for candidates that cut benefits, there will be more net tax payers voting.

US is a constitutional republic and poll taxes are unconstitutional.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Let's be real here: the poor and even quite some of the middle class are already in net negative tax territory when you add in the social net benefits. Romney may have lost the election, but he wasn't wrong when he said that having over 50% of voters be net tax recipients is a recipe for disaster, and it's been well known for quite some time:

The nature of the free market is to concentrate more and more wealth among those who already have the most capital. It's far easier to earn $100k when you have $10 million than it is when you only have $100k. It's only right to concentrate taxes there as well, to counteract that force, less we descend into aristocracy / gilded age robber barony.

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In your opinion, would 0% up to $50K, 15% after that, no deductions, and you can't vote if you don't pay at least 5% of your income in taxes? Remember, if the remaining taxpayers vote for candidates that cut benefits, there will be more net tax payers voting.

That sounds great to me.