Taxation: Where do you stand?

[TitoFan]

One of the biggest points of contention between Republicans and Democrats is the topic of taxation. It's a hugely important topic, and one unfortunately not sufficiently (or adequately) covered in the mud-slinging that has become this 2020 campaign and debates.

I favor the Democratic stance of a stratified tax structure where the rich and the corporations pay a higher tax percentage than the low and middle-class wage earners.

Yet I favor the Republican stance of a smaller, more agile government structure that enables economic growth in the private sector.

Monies from taxes should be used for the traditional uses like infrastructure, defense, health, education, immigration reform (not walls), etc.

[NoSavingByTheBell]

americans have a bee in their bonnet, their knickers in a right twist, about the word "socialism". The government should be taking care of society as much as possibe. the united states of GULAG should by now have a national health care plan that every single person is served by. For free. Only disgraceful "let them eat cake" rich, greedy assholes think that socialized medicine is a bad thing. They will get theirs one day and the world will laugh in their faces.

So I support taxing the rich to the tune of about 60% on their gross income. No loopholes and bullshit artist games with accountants.

Those earning less than $40,000 a year should pay ZERO FUCKING TAXES.

[El Kabong]

Taxation is theft. It's not given freely or not at no consequence, it's a demand of government and for people who think government is way too big and provides way too much it's a burden. A burden only a few people actually shoulder while others just sit back in the social safetynet hammock and are carried.

Burdensome taxes kill jobs and motivation.

Our founding documents don't paint the United States or it's citizens as a charity. The government has no place in that. That should be the PEOPLE who address charity, the COMMUNITY...not at the threat of jail or point of a gun, but out of the goodness and kindness of their hearts, of their own free will. Perhaps then we'd care a bit more about just who is allowed into our great nation.

[TitoFan]

And yet there are oh so many things in life that are supposedly "the government's job." Think roads, bridges, infrastructure in general. When one of these fails, it's the government that gets the blame. So yeah... I'm all for the right sized government. Said so at the outset. But to pretend many things can be done without it is just not practical, IMO. As of this moment in time, the government's main source of income is through taxes. If there was another source that could allow government to carry out its functions, then by all means. But so far nothing else exists. So in effect it's the people... yes... carrying some of the burden that otherwise would go unfinanced. The problem is it has never been done to the satisfaction of all. There are those who favor no taxes at all for some and a hell of a lot for others... and there are those who favor no taxes whatsoever and let the chips fall where they may. Both extremes are full of holes, IMO.

[Primo Carnera]

americans have a bee in their bonnet, their knickers in a right twist, about the word "socialism". The government should be taking care of society as much as possibe. the united states of GULAG should by now have a national health care plan that every single person is served by. For free. Only disgraceful "let them eat cake" rich, greedy assholes think that socialized medicine is a bad thing. They will get theirs one day and the world will laugh in their faces.

So I support taxing the rich to the tune of about 60% on their gross income. No loopholes and bullshit artist games with accountants.

Those earning less than $40,000 a year should pay ZERO FUCKING TAXES.

I’m not looking to stir the shit here honestly. But if you were “Rich” , I wonder how you would feel about paying 60% in taxes?
And without wanting you to answer necessarily because it’s none of my business, but I’m guessing you earn less than $40,000 a year.
I think your prosopal is a bit too radical and unrealistic.

[NoSavingByTheBell]

americans have a bee in their bonnet, their knickers in a right twist, about the word "socialism". The government should be taking care of society as much as possibe. the united states of GULAG should by now have a national health care plan that every single person is served by. For free. Only disgraceful "let them eat cake" rich, greedy assholes think that socialized medicine is a bad thing. They will get theirs one day and the world will laugh in their faces.

So I support taxing the rich to the tune of about 60% on their gross income. No loopholes and bullshit artist games with accountants.

Those earning less than $40,000 a year should pay ZERO FUCKING TAXES.

I’m not looking to stir the shit here honestly. But if you were “Rich” , I wonder how you would feel about paying 60% in taxes?
And without wanting you to answer necessarily because it’s none of my business, but I’m guessing you earn less than $40,000 a year.
I think your prosopal is a bit too radical and unrealistic.

Fair and respectful post, unlike certain others.

[El Kabong]

americans have a bee in their bonnet, their knickers in a right twist, about the word "socialism". The government should be taking care of society as much as possibe. the united states of GULAG should by now have a national health care plan that every single person is served by. For free. Only disgraceful "let them eat cake" rich, greedy assholes think that socialized medicine is a bad thing. They will get theirs one day and the world will laugh in their faces.

So I support taxing the rich to the tune of about 60% on their gross income. No loopholes and bullshit artist games with accountants.

Those earning less than $40,000 a year should pay ZERO FUCKING TAXES.

I’m not looking to stir the shit here honestly. But if you were “Rich” , I wonder how you would feel about paying 60% in taxes?
And without wanting you to answer necessarily because it’s none of my business, but I’m guessing you earn less than $40,000 a year.
I think your prosopal is a bit too radical and unrealistic.

Fair and respectful post, unlike certain others.

Disrespect is earned just as much as respect is so you should value the fruits of your labor.

[SlimTrae]

I stand on viewing it from the beginning and working my way to the present. Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was denied any powers of taxation. But under the Constitution, Congress could and would do this.

Alexander the forerunner to the modern Republican Party known then as (Federalists) believed federal taxation should increase with increased income. Working-class Americans were supposed to pay taxes within their means, and wealthy Americans were supposed to pay higher taxes.
https://www.usrepresented.com/2018/0...0to%20taxation.

Anti-Federalists like Patrick henry was even against attending the Constitution's ratification. As a result it seems a fact that under the Articles of Confederation, Congress had no power to tax the people, thus one of the many reasons for bringing the constitution into existence.

Alex H argued: How is it possible that a government half supplied and always necessitous, can fulfill the purposes of its institution"[How can it undertake or execute any liberal or enlarged plans of public good?]
--Hamilton’s solution to these rhetorical queries was to tax. He proposed federal freedom to tax the occupants of all states without objection. Modern Republican choose to omit and or forget this. I don't. For those interested check out: Federalist papers No. 30 by Alexander Hamilton Dec. 28, 1787 titled "Concerning the General Power of Taxation".

There is ample history to see Anti-Feds reject the usage of taxing to help the common people.
1794, Congress appropriates $15,000 dollars to help French refugees. The purpose is to place ourselves in the day of America’s founding fathers. Rather than speculate what they felt, let us read how they viewed helping immigrants with American taxation.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
--James Madison.

House Representative William Giles of Virginia condemned relief for fire victims, insisting it wasn't the purpose of Congress to attend to what generosity and humanity require. (especially by means of taxing)

President Pierce vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill. "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity....it would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."

President Cleveland vetoed bill for charity relief, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering.”

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers...”
President Madison

James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined ... (to) be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare...”
Thomas Jefferson later reiterated the same point in a letter to Pennsylvania Representative Albert Gallatin,

If given the chance Ron Paul wants to eliminate the 16th amendment.


Based on the founding dudes point of view(that were Anti-Fed), they would have been incensed to see all that we spend taxes on. Their wording IMO is precise and unmistakable as were acts of benevolence should occur/or come from; The document known as the Virginia Declaration: And that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.”

The reasons for such was: great gifts bestowed by the Creator, is conscious of a duty to give due worship to that Creator under no coercion whatever. Since this duty is sacred, and prior to all other duties either to civil society or to the state---- it is a duty owed to the Creator.. it must entail a right to exercise that duty (acts of charity, benevolence), It is prior to every other duty.

The religious foundation for religious liberty, therefore, begins with each of us owing duties to our Creator.

Who were the people debating such an issue?
The early Americans were the Virginians, the Pennsylvanians, they declared the federal Congress incompetent to make any law respecting the establishment of religion or inhibiting the free exercise thereof. “separation of church and state.” They took the government out of the business of religion & as a result all acts of charity, benevolence, must come from the people by being Christians to their neighbor. not by politicians via government.

So in conclusion the Constitution IMO absolved itself of the duties to help its citizens in times of trouble. It was relinquished to Christians. Who fuck it all to be damned. They were too busy stealing land from the natives, making liquor as one of the nation's 1st trade. Brought about an enslavement that denied the right to be human. That is what Christians in America were doing.


After a few hundred years- seeing the racist, biased, bigot views of many religious, Government would intervene.

The last group IMO to back up taxes came through the Democratic party known as socialists who were running the show in Government. From 1900s when over 50 mayors across the country ran as Socialists to the imprisonment of Eugene Debs wanting a free army & not a draft- the rights of children, women were championed (1905-1920) Then a few decades later with Roosevelt & his social system of security to the elderly/retired to his New Deal...Up to Lyndon Johnson & John Kennedy who used the Federal government to intervene on behalf of negros still denied voting rights...well these actions as beautiful as they are, were not supposed to have been acts mandated by a federal government.

But the Fed stepped up, because the Christian to religious overall stepped back from acts of benevolence to those not like them.. F- those Niggers. Damn Wetback Mexicans taking all our job, damn jihadi Muslims the real terrorists I tell you! Oh the Jews taking it all. Damn those lezbo lesbians. Don't you ever marry a catholic, especially an Irish one (ethnic differences) to religious & denominational differences were the acts of the so called pious.

And the Alexander Hamiltonian thinker remained among them so as a result warfare was paid in full, while Democrats focused on Welfare in full.
Cronyism took control over both parties & as a result: Government should be run like a business, so vote Reagan. Bush, Trump. That in turn allows taxes to go off the rails as we just witnessed a lying ass president say for 4 years he would release his taxes--and when he did he paid $750 damn dollars in one year.
I make over 40k, no dependents so I owe taxes.

Well taxation is all messed up and seen through the lenses of ideology; Republicans cut it. Democrats add more.
so we have to use taxes to our best interest given one major problem: unlike FDR who had more paying in then taking out- we have more taking out, than those paying in.
We got temp service jobs, contractors based out of the country backed with the greatest tax cut in history for the wealthy made permanent by this inept jacktail in office. 40 hours is no longer the threshold for qualified as full time it is now 37.5 hours. One doesn't need to work 52 weeks to be called fulltime yearly.

Where Do I stand? fuck talking taxes, dissolve the nation. Christians under Donnie say they have given way too much and blacks & liberals just want free shit. BTW exempt taxes for the wealthy only.
Democrats want to tax people who kicked ass the right way, invested, invented. So those who actually earned their money have to be victimized by their own success, aint that a bitch.
Taxation, no, dissolve the union or watch the nation implode. Oh, wait...its happening right in front of our eyes.

[El Kabong]

I wonder how much money @NoSavingByTheBell makes....

So I support taxing the rich to the tune of about 60% on their gross income. No loopholes and bullshit artist games with accountants.

Those earning less than $40,000 a year should pay ZERO FUCKING TAXES.

.....oh