D13the Colonel vs. Mathius: Part 2 Taxes

Let the battle continue.

1ninetymilesctpYK1r53swio1_540

Advertisements

Comments

  1. As requested 😀

  2. So, Colonel, we meet again. OK, taxes, I’ll lead off this time, if you don’t mind. Let’s start off with some basics.

    Claim 1: Taxes are a means to raise revenue for the operation of the US government and for the maintenance of its debt.

    Claim 2: Taxes are (or have become) a tool of social engineering. That is, as a code, taxes serve a secondary purpose of wealth redistribution and behavior modification. The nature and efficacy of such assertions are not specified in this claim – only that there is some redistribution and behavior modification and that such is by design, not incidental.

    Claim 3: Some people are in a better position than others to bear the “burden” of taxes. That is, ceterus paribus, some people can afford to pay more without suffering as badly.

    Claim 4: “Progressive” or tiered taxes such as the federal income tax (ignoring loopholes) imposes proportionately more of its “burden” on those who are better able to bear it, generally speaking. This claim does not speak to the justice or correctness of this – only that this is what happens as a general rule.

    Claim 5: The Laffer Curve exists and is fundamentally correct, though the “tipping point” is undetermined and subject to debate. That is, that as the tax rate increases, total revenue increases up to a point where people evade taxes or leave – at which point, total revenue decreases. If you are to the left of the tipping point, total revenue can be increased by increasing tax rates. If you are to the right, total revenue can be increased by decreasing tax rates. This does not speak to long-term affects, only short term.

    Claim 6: Medicare, Social Security, UI, and other such programs which raise revenue via taxes and give to others are, fundamentally, wealth redistribution programs, and should not be considered pure taxes in the sense of Claim 1.

    Claim 7: The tax code is extremely complicated for two main reasons. (A) Any truly simple tax code more complicated than per capita will be victim to easy evasion / circumvention such that total revenue will decrease. (B) Wealthy individuals, corporations, and lobbyists insert complications which favor their interests whatever these may be.

    Claim 8: There is no such thing as a death tax. It is an estate tax. And the exemption is so high that only truly wealthy individuals are currently subject to it in any meaningful way.

    Claim 9: So called “sin taxes” are a form of social engineering, not truly taxes in the sense of Claim 1. They are intended to penalize certain behaviors and control us extra-judiciously and any revenue is purely incidental.

    Claim 10: Federal taxes and disbursements to the states constitute a significant transfer of wealth from wealthy/populous states toward poorer/rural states. Though I’d like to stay away from Red/Blue in this thread, I’d like to acknowledge that, by and large, the donor states tend to be blue whereas the recipient states tend to be red.

    Claim 11: Some functions of government are best handled at the local level. Others at the state. Others still at the federal. It is appropriate that funds for these functions be gathered at the appropriate level of government for use by that level of government. It is inappropriate for a higher level to collect revenue for a purpose not ascribed to its own level and then use those funds as leverage to effectively control the lower level’s actions via the purse string.

    Claim 12: Wherein taxes are levied for a specific earmarked purpose, it is inappropriate to “loot” that income for other purposes.

    Claim 13: (Shut up, Flag, you stay out of this!) Taxes, in some form or another, are a “necessary evil” in furtherance of a functional government which provides for the security and general welfare of its people. This claim makes no reference to the size or scope of such taxes, nor the size or scope of such government – only that such are, at some level, necessary.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      Claims 1 and 2 can be objectively proven true. Although taxes are also THEFT unless the payer voluntarily gives up their payments. We also need to recognize that taxes, even if just for revenue have an impact on taxpayer behavior. Even if that was not the intent, taxes are an action which create a reaction of some kind.

      Claim 3 requires “subjective” conclusions based on players not involved. While it is a claim of those supporting taxation, like all bills, it is not an absolute truth as on 1 and 2.

      Claim 4 is false, again because the subjective claim does not hold for all cases.

      I agree with you on Claim 5, a key point ignored by the “conservative” pundits and politicians.

      Claim 6 is partly false, as it relates to Social Security. You are correct in that revenue collected is paid to those retired today and you will pay for mine tomorrow and my kids will pay for yours the years after that. But remember, trust funds paid to non trust functions creates a debt on the books, asset to Soc. Security and Liability to General Accounts.

      Claim 7 is duplicating Claim 2, and is not needed. I do disagree with the general statements as well. Exceptions should not exist to your claims. And you ignore that changes, deductions, exceptions, etc. are the REACTION to what is perceived as unjust taxation.

      Claim 8, the tax on my estate is not due until I die. Sounds like a tax on dying to me. You are INCORRECT regarding the exceptions as I explained to you before. The value of farm land creates estate values in excess of the exemptions despite the lower “income” of the farmer. Claim 8 A: The estate tax does not consider the future use of assets or the actual “return” of money to those inheriting the estate. The tax is on assets, NOT INCOME.

      Claim 9 = Claim 2.

      Claim 10: I disagree with you generalization. Transfers represent transfer of funds but much of those transfers have nothing to do with the wealth of the states. It has more to do with the policy being funded. It would be much cleaner to state that transfers to states are to pay for FEDERAL programs where States have shared funding responsibility or are responsible for carrying out Federal mandates. Even poor states are currently providing some matching funds to many Federal programs. Is this in essence a transfer in reverse??

      Claims 11 and 12: I like.

      Claim 13: Wrong. They are THEFT, per my previous caveat of voluntary payment.

      You did not mention Use Fees. Although I suppose you could consider them a tax levied at the lowest level appropriate, namely the individual benefactor.

    • Claim 1: Taxes are a means to raise revenue for the operation of the US government and for the maintenance of its debt.

      D13: Yes

      Claim 2: Taxes are (or have become) a tool of social engineering. That is, as a code, taxes serve a secondary purpose of wealth redistribution and behavior modification. The nature and efficacy of such assertions are not specified in this claim – only that there is some redistribution and behavior modification and that such is by design, not incidental.

      D13: Yes

      Claim 3: Some people are in a better position than others to bear the “burden” of taxes. That is, ceterus paribus, some people can afford to pay more without suffering as badly.

      D13: Yes

      Claim 4: “Progressive” or tiered taxes such as the federal income tax (ignoring loopholes) imposes proportionately more of its “burden” on those who are better able to bear it, generally speaking. This claim does not speak to the justice or correctness of this – only that this is what happens as a general rule.

      D13: Yes, as written. ( Reserving comment on justice and correctness but your definition is correct ).

      Claim 5: The Laffer Curve exists and is fundamentally correct, though the “tipping point” is undetermined and subject to debate. That is, that as the tax rate increases, total revenue increases up to a point where people evade taxes or leave – at which point, total revenue decreases. If you are to the left of the tipping point, total revenue can be increased by increasing tax rates. If you are to the right, total revenue can be increased by decreasing tax rates. This does not speak to long-term affects, only short term.

      D13: Interesting that you would bring this into the discussion. I prefer to refer to it as the Law of Diminishing returns. ( Both mean basically the same. One is related to supply side economics and the other to margin…..otherwise known as “In everyday experience, this law is expressed as “the gain is not worth the pain.” You other points are relatively correct. However, once again, I will defer that this is also a topic soon to be discussed.

      Claim 6: Medicare, Social Security, UI, and other such programs which raise revenue via taxes and give to others are, fundamentally, wealth redistribution programs, and should not be considered pure taxes in the sense of Claim 1.

      D13: Yes to the first part…..Nope to the second part.

      Claim 7: The tax code is extremely complicated for two main reasons. (A) Any truly simple tax code more complicated than per capita will be victim to easy evasion / circumvention such that total revenue will decrease. (B) Wealthy individuals, corporations, and lobbyists insert complications which favor their interests whatever these may be.

      D13: Yes to the part that the current tax code is extremely complicated ( Buckster likes that part…keeps him employed )…Disagree on Part A and Agree on part B…with reservation.

      Claim 8: There is no such thing as a death tax. It is an estate tax. And the exemption is so high that only truly wealthy individuals are currently subject to it in any meaningful way.

      D13: A rose is a rose is a rose. The correct IRS definition is, of course, the Estate Tax. But it is only paid at the death of a principal. This will become a pretty interesting discussion as I am going through this very thing as we speak having lost both parents recently and the estate is well over the expemption.

      Claim 9: So called “sin taxes” are a form of social engineering, not truly taxes in the sense of Claim 1. They are intended to penalize certain behaviors and control us extra-judiciously and any revenue is purely incidental.

      D13: I can only agree to the social engineering part…so far but am open on this one.

      Claim 10: Federal taxes and disbursements to the states constitute a significant transfer of wealth from wealthy/populous states toward poorer/rural states. Though I’d like to stay away from Red/Blue in this thread, I’d like to acknowledge that, by and large, the donor states tend to be blue whereas the recipient states tend to be red.

      D13: Yes to your first sentence. Depends on which charts you wish to refer to as to the second part. However, shohuld prove interesting in discussion.

      Claim 11: Some functions of government are best handled at the local level. Others at the state. Others still at the federal. It is appropriate that funds for these functions be gathered at the appropriate level of government for use by that level of government. It is inappropriate for a higher level to collect revenue for a purpose not ascribed to its own level and then use those funds as leverage to effectively control the lower level’s actions via the purse string.

      D13: Yes…with one reservation.

      Claim 12: Wherein taxes are levied for a specific earmarked purpose, it is inappropriate to “loot” that income for other purposes.

      D13: Not only yes…..but HELL yes.

      Claim 13: (Shut up, Flag, you stay out of this!) Taxes, in some form or another, are a “necessary evil” in furtherance of a functional government which provides for the security and general welfare of its people. This claim makes no reference to the size or scope of such taxes, nor the size or scope of such government – only that such are, at some level, necessary.

      D13: Evil, yes. But to the definition you bring forth….I will agree to the last 8 words.

      So, a very nice start sir……some of these can be answered easily while some will. no doubt be interesting. So I will further the discussion by selecting the first topic.

  3. I will start with combining Claims 3 and 4…..stay tuned.

  4. I just searched the Constitution can could not find any authorization for a Federal estate tax. It is not a duty, excise tax, income tax, or per capita tax levied on the states. What authorizes it?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      TRay

      Technically it is an “income tax”. The assets of the estate are “income” to those who inherit them.

      However, the assets are not “earned income”.

      • If it were an income tax would it not apply to the individual receiving the tax and not to the estate.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          TRay

          It is my understanding that is how it works, The person inheriting the estate owes the tax. The tax, however, is based on the “death tax” rate for that particular income. Then Congress wrote some rules allowing estates to be placed in trusts which then pay the tax before distribution.

          Bottom line though is that you are essentially correct. The TAX is levied against the entire estate. Multiple heirs and the tax is divided accordingly. The “taxable income” of the heirs cannot reduce the tax.

          I found some research last night also claiming this tax “unconstitutional” because it has always been authorized as an “excise tax” and not an income tax. Although the IRS regulations justify it on the basis that is amounts to income. As an excise tax the tax does not fit the “legal definition” of an excise tax. Thus Congress has no authority to implement such a tax.

          But like all things unconstitutional, it is the Progressive Court of Wizards in Black Robes who decide what is and is not.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      TRay

      Here is the source of the estate, death, tax. Some interesting history on this tax. Each time it was implemented it was then repealed. Up until the “progressive thinkers” came along.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1916

      Also interesting is that the “death tax” handle goes back to the 1800’s when the first such “excise tax on assets passing from one to another upon death” was imposed. Note that at that time they considered it an excise tax. But then they had no “income tax”.

      • I heard something about it going back to the English kings who required heirs to buy back their estates upon death of the master. If it is a tax instituted to pay for WWI, then it should be repealed because the job is done. Same goes for the telephone tax.

        Personally I would like to see the feds do away with all the niggling little taxes and combine them into one tax. All taxes cost to collect both for the payer and the payee. Our current system is very inefficient. I did like Cain’s 999 because we could then object if they tried to raise the rates above 9%. But then politicians never keep there promises. Brown wants to make his temporary tax hikes permanent now.

  5. Re: Laffer curve. The Laffer curve peak not only reflects the point at which tax avoidance becomes significant but also the point at which the tax burden impacts the economy negatively. Too much taxation consumes the capital needed for economic growth.

    Re: Taxes used for social engineering. I am firm believer that this practice should stop. The sole purpose of taxes should be to raise money to support the necessary and proper function of limited government only.

    How much of the tax code is simply administrative in origin without the stamp of approval of Congress? Administrative law and courts (i.e. sanctioned by the king only) independent of the judicial system in England created a big stink once. I need to look that up.

    Re: grants back to the state or better described as bribes. The practice of over taxing and one level to pass the money back to another needs to stop. It is too inefficient. The more hands the money goes though the less value we get in the end. Everybody takes their cut.

  6. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Wasn’t the call for and eventual passage of a permanent income tax related to the passage of the Volstead Act banning alcohol. The government had to make up the for the taxes lost. There at one time or another had been income taxes levied, but were usually temporary, yes? When the inome tax passed the government swore it would not exceed 1%.

    That said, about tax evasion. veryone tries to minimize taxes due the government, hopefully all within the proper use of the tax code, using exemptions as opposed to the term “loophole” which implies a cheap of some sort.

    What ever happened to the promise by the Obama administration to go after those that illegally hid income in swiss banks, with the active advice and participation by those banks. It was a big stink when the Bush administration discovered this and had to get the banks to open up the records. Time ran out on Bush’s admin. The banks have paid dearly for this illegal action, I’ve heard of some europeans getting prosecuted, but I have never heard a word about any US tax evaders being presecuted. Yet our government discovered it……what happened in the past 8 years? This raises a question, if they were republicans having done this it would have been front page news. Could they have been big democrat donors and a quiet donation to a designated “charity” took care of any public legal procedings.

  7. Ok….claim 3 and 4 combined…..this ought to be good because there are several talking points Mathius correctly brought up…Red Bull or no Red Bull…..don’t know if I want to imagine raptors on Red Bull. ( DPM’s cutlass is not going to help tho ).

    Now, on to claim 3 and 4. The fact that some people are in a better position to bear a burden greater than others is not the point at all. As a matter of fact, that line of thinking is, in my opinion, the root of a major problem. Just because someone has more DOES NOT MEAN that they should bear more. That creates a greater problem. You used the term in claim 4 ” proportionately more of its “burden” on those who are better able to bear it.” In other words, the greater your success the more you should pay to “take care” of those that are not so fortunate, or those that are lazy or those that want to scam the system. Progressive tax brackets are simply not fair and stifle and stamp out incentive. Progressive taxes create the permanent under class because why should one work when they have a nanny. ( And don’t try to tell me most people do not want to live that way…..I think that the pendulum has moved to the other side and living off the government is no longer a pariah but something that is taught to generations and laughed about ).

    It is my opinion, that EVERYONE needs skin in the game. EVERYONE !!! I support a flat tax for this very reason. No deductions for anything. Just a flat tax on everyone whether you make $10,000 annually or $10,000,000 annually. Let’s take an example of the 10% flat tax ( just for ease of calculations ). A person making $10,000 pays $1,000 in tax and a person making $1,000,000 pays $100,000 in tax. Everyone has skin in the game. Progressive taxes penalize….and creates the permanent underclass I am complaining about. Now, other than the socialist argument of “the greater good”, please tell me what is unfair about a flat tax. Please give me a logical and rational argument why anyone should pay 30 or 40% of their income in Federal Income taxes when others pay no Federal Income tax OR better yet, get a refund.

    If you are going to use the greater good argument, explain to me WHO GETS TO DEFINE GREATER GOOD? What is wrong with simplifying the tax code, have everyone pay on their income at the same percentage. You still accomplish the same thing as others paying more but the key is living within your means…..Are you entitled to free housing? Are you entitled to food stamps? Are you entitled to free education? Are you entitled to free anything?

    So, other than the greater good, what argument is there for progressive taxes?

    • I’ve committed a lot of time to SUFA over the last few days, so I’m going to be doing a bit of catch up on work today. So, I’m going to have to keep things short. I apologize that I can’t afford to give you my usual point-by-point rebuttals.

      That said:

      1. It’s called noblesse oblige. The Google defines it as the implied obligation of those with privilege to act with generosity toward those in need. The concept itself is very old and might be thought of as “if you can afford to help, you have a moral obligation to do so.” We lefties subscribe to this world-view.

      2. Who gets to define Greater Good? Society does. We elect people to impose our collective will. If we objected strenuously enough, we’d boot the lot of them and elect new people who do obey our collective will. To borrow from Orwell, we’d shake them off like a dog shaking flees. Generally speaking, the balance of society has determined that they generally support the idea of an obligation of the wealthy to support/help the less fortunately. Our system does not lend itself toward being particularly efficient at this, but there it is. I do find it interesting that the people who tend to be the most vocal opponents of this kind of a system, as a demographic, tend to be recipients rather than donors.

      3. What is wrong with simplifying the tax code?

      Let’s say the tax code is one sentence long “Mathius pays 10% of his income annually.” So I talk to my boss and have him pay me with other stock.

      So we revise the tax code “Mathius pays 10% of his income, which includes all forms of compensation, annually.” So I talk to my boss and have him pay me with gold coins which have a face value of $50 and use that as the basis of my filing.

      “Mathius pays 10% of his income, which includes all forms of compensation at fair market value, annually.” So I talk to my boss and have him put my income aside invested in an index pre-tax, and I’ll draw it down as I see fit.

      “Mathius pays 10% of his income, which includes all forms of compensation and deferred compensation at fair market value, annually.” So I talk to my boss and tell him that my house is a business expense since I work from home occasionally. He agrees to pay me less, but cover my mortgage payments. We agree that this is not income, since it is the business paying for a business expense.

      “Mathius pays 10% of his income, which includes all forms of compensation and deferred compensation at fair market value, annually. Further, business expenses may not include paying your mortgage.” So I talk to my boss and he agrees that my car, since I use it to commute, and my cell phone, since I use it for work, are also business expenses. And so on…

      “Mathius pays 10% of his income, which includes all forms of compensation and deferred compensation at fair market value, annually. Further, business expenses may not include items listed in Appendix A.” But then I argue, well that’s not fair, my car really is a business expense.

      “Mathius pays 10% of his income, which includes all forms of compensation and deferred compensation at fair market value, annually. Further, business expenses may only be used at the rates listed in Schedule A pursuant to terms and conditions set forth in Schedule B.” Screw it, we say, he’ll just pay me half of my salary under the table.

      “Mathius pays 10% of his income, which includes all forms of compensation and deferred compensation at fair market value, annually. Further, business expenses may only be used at the rates listed in Schedule A pursuant to terms and conditions set forth in Schedule B. Employers are required to track and report expenses and outflows greater than $1,000 in cash which might be used pay under the table.” Well there’s no mechanism to catch me..

      “and we reserve the right to audit.” Well there’s no mechanism to penalize me..

      “and we reserve the right to penalize you.” Well you can’t catch me if my records don’t exist.

      “and you have to keep records.” Well you didn’t say they have to be “good” records.

      “and they have to be kept to these standards as set out in Schedule C.

      Ok, so what happens if I don’t have 10% of my income sitting around at the end of the year?

      “You have to pay quarterly.” What happens if I don’t have it available quarterly?

      “.. Employers have to withhold taxes and submit them to the IRS.” By the way, are cap gains the same as income?

      “See Schedule 537Q.” And so on..

      That turned out to be not as short as I’d hoped..

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Short retort.

        The “obligation” of the privileged to help the less fortunate is handled via CHARITY. Replacing charity with FORCED sharing degrades the social fabric the societal norm is supposed to establish.

        • JAC,

          This is supposed to be between the good Colonel and myself!

          That said, I’ll retort to your retort: You seem to have a far more beneficent view of humanity than I do.

          Mathius’ 2nd Law: People. Are. Greedy.

          Given their druthers, most people would buy themselves a sports car before they bought food for starving orphans.

          “Are there no prisons?”
          “Plenty of prisons…”
          “And the Union workhouses. Are they still in operation?”
          “Both very busy, sir…”
          “Those who are badly off must go there.”
          “Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”
          “If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”

          -JAC’s fantasy version of America

          • Was working on a different Claim and saw your retort….

            “Given their druthers, most people would buy themselves a sports car before they bought food for starving orphans.”

            Ummmm……so?

            • Not true. Much more likely for liberals who prefer to “let the government do it” than conservatives. Study if you will the charitable contributions of the big three Clinton, Obama and Biden. Clinton’s giving money to herself and her “foundation” does not count. Another great piece of BS that came to light in the Romney – Obama race that the media buried.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            Nice non answer, and one that ignores ACTUAL history. You pose a leftists poem as proof or your bankrupt theory.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      My only comment about taxes and then out. Back in ’60 when congress passed a law making “moving and living” expenses when a company moves an employee taxable income while at the same time expempting themselves my parents were the designated test case by the IRS. while it still was being challenged in the courts. The harassment by IRS agents of my mother were extreme and only when my father was away at work. The tactics used were akin to the gestapo. Needless to say the law stood, and all taxes paid, but my father until his dying day, followed the KISS principle. I had only one run in with the IRS and it was expensive and totally arbitrary, but the legal expenses to fight them would have far exceeded their arbitrary additional tax assessment. Congress had changed a law when they were playing around with things like IRA, 401K’s etc. Companies could give stock based on years of service. Only when you cashed it in did it become taxable. But congress quietly said, NO, it’s now taxable income and, not so only if you placed the money into the latest government approved scheme. It was only a footnotein the tax forms and IBM did not make it abundantly obvious the tax law changed. They just put up a notice on a bulletin board. The IRS knew to audit every IBMer that received stock in this manner, because they knew most people would miss it. We did not object at all to the oversight because it was a miss. What we objected to was the alleged increase in our taxes. The agents said, all we had due was the increased liability plus interest on the missed portion. Understand that this was 2 weeks after April 15th. The tax assessment was $5000. At best the stock raised our income by 2-3K on a $120K income. The tax increase in itself was negligable, she said that it was interest mostly. I looked at the IRS person and asked what bank do they do business with to get that kind of interest especially in 2 weeks. Her snide retort was….”want to try for $10000″? I also follow the KISS principle.

  8. Off topic for a moment….anybody paying attention to Corsica?

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Haven’t seen anything yet…..an active separtist movement from France raising it’s head, like Sardinia and Italy and also to some degree Sicily. All conquered provinces.

      The headlines on my end are the reports sustained by both parties in the house and IG reports after whistleblowers, that analysis was cooked to fit the political naratative on ISIS and it’s build up around the election so the WH etc could tell fairy tales..

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Corsica did elect a nationalist government in December and are now flying their own flag etc. have they officially split? Pyrennes and basque country, will rear up, as will Sardinia and Sicily which has been perking along over time. Quebec will try again and if successful Canada will split up. The maritime provinces said they’d petition for statehood with the US.
        Once Brexit effects stablizes, Scotland will try again.

        Bets Texas anyone?

        • No bet on Texas, but they have my blessing.

          Don’t forget to build The Wall(tm) along your northern border, too!

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Seems to me it would be a lot easier if NY, NJ and CA simply left the union. The rest of us would then do just fine. The left coast of Oregon and Washington would not be able to out vote us. They would probably want to join California though.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      I cut this from Wikipedia about the armed groups who fought for separation warning to muslims.

      “In July 2016, the FLNC-22 warned of a “determined response, without any qualms” for any jihadist attack in Corsica.”

      In Sicily, from my direct experience, When Sicily was conquered by Garbaldi in the 1800’s life there became one of servants to absentee landlords up in Rome. Justice was rarely ever served. That gave rise to the mafia, which morphed into a worse organization than any central government Ital had to offer. The people got it from both ends. Now with the EU refusing to protect the borders the illegal migration generally hit Sicily 1st. This has literally destroyed a fragile economy. The acceptance of the Euro was a disaster for the people. With Sicilians being arrested by the PC police and courts for wearing bathing suits that offend muslims who insist their wives wear burkas to the beach…..The people will take matters into their own hands. It’s their lives being destroyed and Brussels bureaucrats are unaffected and they do not care. Rome was emmasculeted (sp) when it gave up its independence.

    • If everything splits up, we have been thrust back to the 17th century. Not a terribly good idea.

      The folks up north have become very quit. last time they said they would do it, the English speakers called them out. Took a couple of weeks to realize what an economic basket case they would be. Sort of like Harlem, Watts and the South Side of Chicago declaring their independence.

      Which reminds me, HUGE INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY!

      Obama is putting his library/museum on the South Side of Chicago. Bet you guys dollars to doughnuts that they are planning to gentrify the area, Exponentially raise the price of real estate and drive out the poor blacks. Seen it before!

  9. Just A Citizen says:
    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      I assume that even without advocating violence, just objecting and speaking out about what is happening to your neighborhood and nation will be designated a hate crime. Just doing a simple thing like going to the beach not covered will bring offense, and therefore a hate crime…..slippery slope and is happening

  10. Louisiana under MORE water than Katrina.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/08/16/death-toll-in-louisiana-floods-rises-to-7-as-waters-slowly-begin-to-recede.html

    Where is the big mOuth? The world wants to know!

  11. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Biden in a campaign speech for Hillary in Scranton, PA says that she does not need “White Men” to win the election. Especially the ones who generally support Trump who are blue colllar, not genarally college educated, but middle class. Isn;t this the category, except being white that Hillary professes to be for, Biden says the Obama coalition of all the other groups will prevail. This has got to be the most bigoted, and I’ll say racist comment by any candidate or their proxies. But Hillary can claim being innocent…..Biden said it.

    Giving this speech in Scranton, a bastion of blue collar workers hit hard by the energy policies of Obama being anti-coal use in any form, anti fracking which creates muddy dirty high paying jobs to the people willing to get their hands dirty.

    It is very evident why Bill had blatant affairs. To bad he picked on office workers in his employ, instead of just an affair, like with an actress,

  12. Just A Citizen says:

    Hillary is displaying the same feebleness that McCain did when he ran. Which was the biggest reason I did not vote for him. Well maybe not the biggest but it certainly was part of my criteria.

  13. Just A Citizen says:

    Tell me again how the election results are due to fixing and not the stupid voters themselves.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/liz-cheney-wyoming-primary_us_57b405f9e4b0edfa80da4358?section=&

  14. Mathius, Mathius, Mathius…………..I see that your wife has a long way to go to teach you the realities of the world. First of all, there is no moral obligation to do anything. One of your statements you always make “People are Greedy”………so what? This greater good crap comes from elitists. Elitists are destroying the middle class. This Global crap that is being pushed is just that. A load of crap….I do not want to be part of or have anything to do with the people of Europe, for example, except to travel there as I wish. Our forefathers were kicked out of countries for their independence and you wish to take it away again.

    If…..IF…..I wish to give to the poor….I will do so. Neither you, nor the government, has any right to take what I have and give it to people I do not even know and do not give a rat’s ass about. If I want to feed the poor, I will do so in my own community. And I will feed the TRULY NEEDY…which is about 10% of the population……Not this part of the population that is dependent upon the government because you lefties have created a permanent sub culture of “entitlements” ( which will be the next debate ).

    You are stating, as I see it, that the justification for taking more from the affluent is to give to the “less fortunate” is because they are………………….what……. Less fortunate? I submit to you my observation….neither one of us can prove this either way, but it is my observation. The truly needy are less than 10% of the population. Obama is harping on the low unemployment rate….but in the same breath is harping on more bailout for extending unemployment. Do you see the hypocrisy in this statement? The true unemployment rate is well over 10%…you know this. You are smart enough to know how the U/E numbers are skewed. Full employment would be creating a surplus boom. But you lefties say…well, there are no jobs. This leads me to the tax code.

    Eliminate all deductions…and I mean ALL OF THEM. I will happily pay the increase that I will have in my taxes……if everyone……poor and affluent alike…..pays the same. Eliminate all corporate deductions…..every single one of them including depreciation. Make ALL corporations pay the same percentage….say…..20%….with NO….NOT ONE teeny tiny deduction. No reimbursement of travel expenses….no martini lunches……NOTHING. Do you get it? NOTHING. Companies leave the USA to have better tax incentives…why not keep them here.

    How simple would a flat tax be? Not this diatribe about your employer paying you in eggs and butter…..eliminate all schedules. TOTAL……COMPLETE….all of them. I know you do not have the time to do this…..but I have done it with the available information that the government puts out and the conversations that I have had with my profession tax advisors. I took the demographics of the population as reported by the census. I took the same census information of available working age persons under the age of 70 (not 65). I also went to the government supplied numbers on corporations operating overseas and their incomes and added the same here. Applied a 20% tax rate to all corporations and applied a 15% tax rate to all individuals using the government supplied numbers. The individual tax rate INCLUDED LLC’s and Sub (s) corporations. In addition, I did one more thing….I eliminated all trade deficits and applied, the best that I could, free and even trade dollar for dollar. ( The US Department of Commerce has these numbers ). Know what I found with simple arithmetic? Income to the Treasury increased over 842 billion (with a B) bucks….for one year. Extrapolated out, in 11.6 years, we have eliminated the deficit AND paid down debt (not increasing it) over 2.1 TRILLION in the same 11.6 years. In 20 years, your children will have NO debt and your grand children have a chance then.

    I would have to pay my 15% which would be an INCREASE. My Corporations would have to pay 20 % which would be an increase. And this eliminates all these surcharges as well. Right now….the tax code allows me to reduce my tax rate to below these amounts.

  15. Similar topic on morals…and society.

    The recent incidents on BURKINIS…France, including towns of Nice, Cannes, Sisco (Corsica), and Germany have finally decided ro single out invading Islamic Culture. The wearing of Burkinis is scaring people. Islamic culture is scaring people. France and Germany…the SUPPOSED models of multi culturalism have finally figured out it will not work. The recent violence on the beaches of the French Riviera where topless swim wear abounds is being threatened by the growing Islamic Culture that is saying showing skin like that is against their religion and impedes their rights to the beach.

    Tourists that are taking pictures on public beaches are being assauted by Islamic men for taking pictures on a PUBLIC beach. Brawls are now breaking out and violence is spreading in France and Germany over………………………..CULTURE. It simply does not mix. The society is beginning to speak. Denmark has said that it will also ban the Burkinin on its beaches. Why? Because Muslim men do not like the fact that pictures are being taken are are assaulting people for doing so.

    Culture is an issue…..a major issue. Europe is beginning to find that out. If it is not an issue why is it being questioned and banned.,,,,and being questioned and banned from countries that were once the champion of miulti culturalism and it is not stopping there. Muslim enclaves are being raided and travel bans in Europe are being exercised over Muslim issues.

    So, Mathius, society is beginning to speak out because elected officials are now saying enough….am I going to hear the leftist cry of ISLAMOPHOBIA?

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      When in Amsterdam years ago, gangs of Islamic youths were assulting the Dutch women for being immodest, because they were out riding their bicycles and NOT covering up. Needless to say the Dutch people complained to the government and the EU. They were told to cover up and stop offending the Muslims. The people were pissed off, but were even being prosecuted for hate crimes and being Islamophobic by just being who they are and enjoying the “freedoms” of their society. The people got bullied into silence.
      In ’05 the Sicilians were seriously getting hacked off by the EU forcing the Italian government to NOT protect their national borders and enabling the tide of migrants into a seriously fragile economy as it was then and even worse today. Girls being arrested, fined serious money, on the beaches in world famous resorts in Sicily because they wore bikini’s and therefore offending islamic men. They’re being told by the EU to be MORE sensitive and tolerant of the Muslims…..Nobody in the govenments are demanding the opposite of the Muslims. Only demanding that their citizens relinguish their rights and freedoms and way of life. Total BS. As Steve MNartin used to say in one of his routines “well….. excuseeee… meeee”

  16. Gman…..may I have a new thread on “Entitlement PRograms” Please?

  17. Just A Citizen says:

    Today the Muslim Jihadists tell us why they hate us, tomorrow Clinton and Obama, along with the MSM, will tell us they are not really Muslims.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/08/isis_exposes_true_reason_it_hates_the_west.html

  18. Dale A Albrecht says:

    What I find so incredible, Is that all these groups that claim in the past to be “republican” and anti democratic party, especially Obama and Hillary’s policies seem to be playing a real sour grapes and spoiled brat game. Cruz supporters, Paul supporters, Bush etc all seem to be playing the Dems game instead of banding together, are aiding Hillary, who absolutely will continue and double down policies they profess to hate and say are not good for America. They seem to be doing Hillary’s dirty work. Unless this has been all along a political tactic, which I doubt. The republican party heads are not that savy.

    Trump will use the law as he has done in his businesses, he will not abuse the law as Obama and Hillary have done. He on his worse day, would probably be better than Hillary . This may seem odd, but I would rather see Bill running instead of Hillary. He does recognize a bad deal when he sees it and will dump it. He does sieze a good idea, regardless of its source and champions it. That is politics. Obama and Hillary are just words and are too dogmatic on their beliefs and truly to the bottom of their souls, if they have one, believe any republican or conservative idea is evil.

  19. Only caught Trump’s Thursday speech today on C-Span but heard about it last night from son #3 the merchant mariner.

    On Hannity last night, Newt said you could put this in the bank and pull it out the day after the election………..

    “Trump will win with 51% of the vote” but, “If he continues doing what he is doing and giving these speeches, he will win with 65% to 35%”.

    I kinda like that because it was my first prediction of the split last year.

    I cannot say enough about the brilliance of going after the Black vote, traveling to LA and getting rid of Manafort. When it became apparent that the Media was about to pivot away from Trump’s policy statements yet again over the Manafort-Russian Link allegations, it became time for him to go. In the long run it will actually benefit Manafort since the spotlight will now fade and facts rather than speculation will rule.

    Do NOT ever say Trump does not have a plan. He is starting to remind me of the Maverick brothers, Bret and Bart. You never know the hole card.

    THERE WILL BE A MAJOR HOUSE CLEANING IN THE GOP NEXT YEAR.

    I’d like some opinions on Pence since I am worried about Trump’s physical safety after November.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Concerning your last sentence…..if the polls start closing, in other words Trump’s message is finally getting out, without distortion to the people, I’d worry about his safety BEFORE November.

      The other night I was out and most of the time the Olympics was being shown, but then there were breaks to the news. One of the commentators, I do not know who it was, was obviously talking about something concerning Trump. Not news but editorializing the news. There was no sound, having been on mute, you could still get the message about what she was saying. All by her facial and body language. The condensation and sneering and obvious disdain for Trump and the Republicans was so blatantly evident. In all honesty, if there was sound, I’m sure she would have been more obnoxious and bias than Keith Obermann……there was a banner on the screen, so we knew what the topic was.

  20. During the greatest expansion of the Roman Empire (some by conquest, some by “barbarians” willingly joining the Empire. the amount of taxes placed on the citizens was “two days labor per year”.

    Imagine…..

%d bloggers like this: