quote:

Originally posted by Patriot:


Fuck that! There are already tax breaks for breeders. If you shit one out, you pay for it.


Taxation on social security and earning limits keep retired folks in poverty.

Is that really necessary to make your point.

Some might agree but.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: old rugged cross,

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
I'm not going to argue with you because I'm in favor of low taxation across the board.

On that we can agree!

I never understood why SS is taxed… it is money that I (and sometimes my employer) have put in over my working life.

On the other hand, Democrats never saw a dollar the did not want!

Yes, it’s our money we’re being taxed twice on, but that’s hardly limited to Social Security payments.

The rationale of taxing Social Security is of course in keeping with that fine old American tradition* of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” i.e., income tax varies according to one’s total income. My wife and I, for example, get not only Social Security but also unrelated pensions and other income, including from my part time employment. Most people would therefore agree that we should be taxed on all of it.

*

More winning for nuclear power....sometimes the screen gets foggy

^^^ Excellent!

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Yes, it’s our money we’re being taxed twice on, but that’s hardly limited to Social Security payments.

The rationale of taxing Social Security is of course in keeping with that fine old American tradition* of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” i.e., income tax varies according to one’s total income.

Of course you are referring to that fine old Russian tradition!

The phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a principle popularized by Karl Marx in his "Critique of the Gotha Programme." It suggests a system where individuals contribute to society based on their capacity and receive resources based on their needs, rather than their contributions. In a communist society envisioned by Marx, this principle would be a foundational element of production and distribution.

quote:

Originally posted by Carpentermaass84:
I see a bunch of liberals on reddit crying about a supposed provision in the bill that prevents government-funded courts from interfering with the executive branch. Is there any truth to that? I see this as an opening for a 2028 run as the Surpreme court will be unable to stop it. Bannon seemed really confident about a third term and this is likely why.

There will never be a 3rd term president. Congress cannot strip the SCOTUS of their original jurisdiction.

There has been a 3 term president before has there not?

quote:

Originally posted by stickman428:
There has been a 3 term president before has there not?

Not since the 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951. Before that there was no limit, and FDR did 4 terms (he died in office during the 4th term).

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
Of course you are referring to that fine old Russian tradition!

Marxist, but yes.
What is ironic, though, is that many of the practices and policies in the US today and dating back at least a century or more and even before the Communist revolution are essentially based on the same idea even if not expressed as such.

If someone has a lot of money or even owns something like valuable property such as a house—and regardless of one’s income—the state will demand he pay to support the people who don’t. The Marxist “ability” could be considered to be capability to provide productive work, but here and now it more refers to the (supposed) ability to pay.

quote:

Originally posted by Patriot:

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
[QUOTE] Giving a tax break to people who get pregnant and actually deliver a baby might be a good idea. And no, I don't want to import illegal aliens. I'm anti-immigration but pro-domestic childbirth.

Fuck that! There are already tax breaks for breeders. If you shit one out, you pay for it.


Taxation on social security and earning limits keep retired folks in poverty.

That’s a pretty calloused way to refer to people having families. You’re talking about my wife and children like that. How about this, you get out of my pocket and I’ll get out of yours. If government didn’t take half of what I make, I wouldn’t have had to be subsidized with tax breaks.

And for the record, in your old age when you need help to survive, you’ll be grateful women gave birth to the next generations. There’s not much that goes on here that pisses me off but I don’t like being called a breeder. The homosexual community refers to heterosexuals as breeders and they do it with sneering derision.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
Another clip of the South African President, take a close look at his face along with the two on the sofa, guess their little plan did not pan out.

Goosen should probably not go back to South Africa now.


.

^^^ Yup. He should seek asylum pronto.

quote:

Originally posted by Patriot:

Fuck that! There are already tax breaks for breeders.

"Breeders" is a crude epithet used by homosexuals to degrade heterosexual couples.

The derogatory term aside, how would you increase the population in the USA? Continue to import people who may or may not respect this country, or encourage productive Americans to have larger families?

Right or wrong, tax policy has been used to encourage certain behaviors (Home ownership, having children) or discourage others (smoking, drinking, gasoline use, productivity, etc), and it is effective.

.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
^^^ Yup. He should seek asylum pronto.

And maybe get his family out too.



.

quote:

Originally posted by Patriot:
Fuck that! There are already tax breaks for breeders. If you shit one out, you pay for it.

This is the most offensive thing I've ever read on this forum.

quote:

Originally posted by synthplayer:

quote:

Originally posted by Patriot:
Fuck that! There are already tax breaks for breeders. If you shit one out, you pay for it.

This is the most offensive thing I've ever read on this forum.

Yep. I wonder what the breeder that shat him out would think of his statement.

You all know exactly what Patriot was referring too and you need to get over yourselves.

Poor choice of words, but I am sure he was referring to the welfare queens that have made an industry of producing children out of wedlock and using them as an income source. Even if they do not pay into the tax system, many of them can get these federal (and some state) tax monies if they file, and believe me they do file as that is part of the welfare grift.

And, many of those children will do nothing productive with their lives except learn the same game or become menaces to society.

quote:

Originally posted by bozman:
You all know exactly what Patriot was referring too and you need to get over yourselves.

Poor choice of words, but I am sure he was referring to the welfare queens that have made an industry of producing children out of wedlock and using them as an income source. Even if they do not pay into the tax system, many of them can get these federal (and some state) tax monies if they file, and believe me they do file as that is part of the welfare grift.

And, many of those children will do nothing productive with their lives except learn the same game or become menaces to society.

Yeah? But that’s not what he said.