Hey @Brad Once again, let me help you understand what a dynamic verb is. Like “butt muncher,” this can be used to describe why you might have nothing but excrement spewing from the toad’s oral orifice.
Apparently you really need some more time at the range so you can identify a bullseye by watching others, it would seem.
Your attempt with this was to demean Papa_Zed: I merely pointed out you are less important than a rich slut. See, this was on point and a reminder that you could develop and carry on an adult conversation without the verbal attacks on his character. Since you failed at this, it left me no other recourse given your blatant attitude. To use your own tactics on you since it is apparently all you understand.
Agreed, what is worse is one of our own cheating on their taxes. Unwilling to pay their fair share of taxes. Like Mr. Trump grifting our tax money by not paying his fair share like you and I do. He is just one of many in his position. I guess people only complain about those who cannot bullshit their way out of it.
Also to be clear, I have never said to make them pay more, only to pay what we do or their fair share. Paying 1% is not their fair share. This has contributed to the decline of the middle class. Also the erosion of the American dream.
What is one’s “fair share”? As a citizen, are we all not responsible for our limited government and contributing to its existence? To that end, would not in an egalitarian society, of which the USA is, each citizen contributes equally? So how much should each citizen in the USA contribute? IIRC, we are currently indebted about $175,000 to pay-off the national debt. I am more than willing to pay that. Are you? or do you want the “wealthy” to pay it for you?
Really, do you lack common sense? I swear you guys truly lack the ability to read or comprehend English.
Please, genius, point to where I alluded to this; you are just making shiat up again. Also, if you cannot figure out fairness, you really had shitty parents. Do a little simple math: 1% tax and 24% tax are an overwhelming difference in tax brackets. I am willing to pay the 1% of what I make in taxes like the filthy rich do. I bet it doesn’t work that way either. What do you not understand about simple math or fairness?
Personally, I think you are the one with the problem here; you believe in entitlement for being wealthy. Are you a millennial or some kind of crazy liberal? Please do a little reading, like the constitution; it is all about fairness under the law. Too bad the 16th amendment did not lay out the foundation to collect taxes fairly among its citizens and businesses. It left it to people who could be corrupted by the rich with lobbyists.
The IRC, titled 26, has been prostituted beyond belief and corrupted by corporate funds. Sorry, but corporations are not people; another perversion of the law and fairness.
The phrase “fair share” has been used frequently in recent years as people have debated issues like taxes and income inequality. “What does it mean to have a “fair share” of something someone else has worked for?” Thomas Sowell, the acclaimed American economist, has an answer.
Sowell defines “fair share” as follows: “Fair share is whatever you can get away with without getting caught or without arousing enough public indignation to make it politically dangerous.” In other words, your fair share of something is not necessarily determined by what’s objectively fair or ethical; it’s determined by how much you can take without facing repercussions.
Sowell argues that “fair share” is rooted in envy and resentment. He suggests that people who demand others’ “fair share” are often motivated to punish those who have achieved success and to reward those who have not, regardless of whether they deserve it. This thinking leads to arguments favouring redistributive taxation and other policies meant to level the playing field between the haves and the have-nots.
But Sowell cautions against such policies. He points out that when governments try to implement them, they almost always do so in ways that are inefficient, ineffective, and unjust — often hurting the very people they’re intended to help while going easy on those who can navigate the system and take advantage of loopholes or political connections. This system rewards dishonesty over hard work and incentivizes people to game the system rather than trying their best at honest labour.
To benefit from each other’s successes, we must strive toward policies that create incentives for everyone — not just those fortunate enough to find ways around them — to work hard and be honest in their endeavours. According to Thomas Sowell, “fair share” is not associated with justice or fairness; it’s simply a way for some people to acquire more than what is rightfully theirs at the expense of others. As Sowell suggests, this kind of thinking can lead down a slippery slope where governments try to enact policies based on notions of fairness without considering their implications for society or individuals.
First, it would be difficult to find a single post of yours on this entire forum where you aren’t making an attempt to demean at least one person here. Look in the mirror.
Second, all three of you replied to me about that post when my post neither directly responded to nor mentioned anyone specifically. It seems I hit a chord; sometimes the truth hurts.
Lastly, my comment itself isn’t “demeaning”. If I said “Lewis Hamilton’s ‘95 McLaren F1 is a far better car than your ‘21 Honda Accord will ever be” and that offended you, you would be confirming that what I said was true. The fact that offense was the emotional response it, the truth, elicited reveals more about the character and the sense of self-worth of the offended than it does of me or my comment.
Still totally clueless about everything going on around you. I have had many conversations with people here where there was not a single demeaning factor. Mainly because they conduct themselves like adults. You are unaware of this just like your little group of proud boys. I simply don’t start it, but unlike you, I am man enough to confront it, and I do not hit the flag button like you little prats. You and your cohorts like to pick on people and have no backbone to receive it in return.
I am positive at this point you were the ones on the playground who used to pick on the mentally challenged kids and think you were kewl and funny. I, on the other hand, was the one seeing this crap and walking over to you and going, “This will end today, and grow the fook up.”
I am more than happy to say yes; putting people like you in their place is something I do and would do to your face in a heartbeat. Something you will never do is man up to admitting you are wrong for behaving this way. You fail to take responsibility for your actions, whereas I have no problem taking credit for mine like true men do.
OMG, this speaks volumes about you. You are going to still stand there and try to say this is not meant in a defamatory nature. This is exactly what I am speaking about when it comes to you. Keep lying to yourself, but be assured when you lie to me, I will call you out every time.
You really don’t get it, do you? It is a simple representation of what you do to others and me. It is simply delusional hubris on your part. Your attempt to take the high ground when you are standing in the mud is comical.
I see you still fail at acknowledging your digressions towards others. Even when someone echoes them right back at you.
Let me spell it out to you in your own words; maybe then it will sink in.
It’s funny how you can say this about another person, than when it is said about you. You lose your shiat.
Still unwilling to digest your insipid participation and be accountable for what you do, like most liberals.
The comment made was not a direct reply to a person, it did not quote a single person, and it did not name a single person.
Three people took offense to it, all responded emotionally. This is evidence of the truth in the comment.
Again, you know nothing about me. You’re speaking directly to me, whereas my comment was made to an audience of many. Those who became offended made themselves the subject of the comment, not me.
Your replies to me in this thread have included name-calling, personal character attacks and other similar tactics. Any offense you’ve taken from anything I’ve said was by your own choosing, not mine.
I, myself, am not as accomplished or as successful as those in Trump’s cabinet. I fit the “you” of my own words. Here I am, as confident in my own skin as anyone, as proud of what I have done and of who I am as anyone, and I am unbothered by the likes of you who attempt to demean me.
You can keep trying if you’d like, but I will not lose a solitary second of rest worrying about your opinion.
You did more than allude to it, so technically, you did not allude to it, neither did I state that you did.
You seem not to be able to read the tax tables. The link below also shows the rates for Single, Separate, and Head of Household. Please point to where anyone is in a 1% federal tax rate. You need to stop trying so hard to look stupid, it unnecessary.
Tax rate on taxable income from . . . up to . . .
10% $0 $23,850
12% $23,851 $96,950
22% $96,951 $206,700
24% $206,701 $394,600
32% $394,601 $501,050
35% $501,051 $751,600
37% $751,601 And up
Yes, so the debate is what is “fair under the law”. If tax law is changed so that every citizen is required to pay the same amount to run our governments, that would be “fair under the law”. The current IRS rules and regulations are “fair under the law”.
I clearly am not a “Millenial” nor a “crazy liberal,” but I assume that was supposed to be another ad hominem attack. You need to get much better at that, as you appear to be a whiny, low-class child when you do that.
What entitlement do I believe in granting “wealthy” people that I don’t believe others should have? Though I do not believe anyone should have “entitlements,” as in taxpayer-funded money to support them just because he/she doesn’t want to support him/herself. I stated that I believe in egalitarianism. Maybe you need to understand the definition of that word. Everyone paying the same is as democratic as it can get.
Being a Conservative, I do believe and understand that not all are able to pay taxes, nor even able to support themselves, so in any system there needs to be a means to help those in need. I do not believe government is the proper vehicle to that end. As the adage states, charity begins at home. However, it does not end there.
I understand your point about looking stupid; it comes to you naturally; there’s no need to even try. Here is the reality. I know it is not something you are used to dealing with, so I will be gentle.
Jeff Bezos’ estimated tax bill for 2024 was around 1% of his estimated net worth growth.
Elon Musk, paid zero federal income tax in 2025 on $5.7 billion of U.S. income
Michael Bloomberg paid a “true tax rate” of 1.3% on his $22.5 billion wealth growth
George Soros paid no federal income tax three years in a row .
It looks like these are the people in “need” you describe. The ones you are talking about that should get special tax breaks for being able to pay their taxes.
You have got to be kidding; please tell me you are not that far gone.
Looking at your responses, I think maybe you should look up the meaning of the word in ENGLISH. I know what it means; I argue for it all the time here while uniformed people like you have lost sight due to your bias.
Hell, I will make it even simpler for you to understand egalitarianism. Simply look up the word “equality.” Then digest what this actually means for a second, and it will become obvious, like to a child, why what you have stated is so flawed. 0 to 1% is not 24% and doesn’t even qualify as egalitarianism or equality or, here’s the biggie, “fairness.”
It really concerns me that you think this is fair. What happened to you in your life that simple numbers no longer hold truth for you? Please take into consideration that “Fantasy Island” got canceled. It was as popular as your “ideas,” not facts, expressed here.
While I do not fully understand it, but we are not comparing apples vs. apples here. One is income tax, while the other is wealth gain (unrealized income due to stock growth) which is not taxed since the US does not have a Federal Wealth Gain tax in place.
WARREN BUFFETT
Topline facts:
● Wealth growth, 2014-2018: $24.3 billion
● Total income reported for tax purposes: $125 million (0.51% of his wealth growth)
● Total federal income taxes paid,: $23.7 million
● True tax rate: 0.10%
JEFF BEZOS
Topline facts:
● Wealth growth, 2014-2018: $99 billion
● Total income reported for tax purposes: $4.22 billion (4.26% of his wealth growth)
● Total federal income taxes paid: $973 million
● True tax rate: 0.98%
ELON MUSK
Topline facts:
● Wealth growth, 2014-2018: $13.9 billion
● Total income reported for tax purposes: $1.52 billion (10.94% of his wealth growth)
● Total taxes paid: $455 million
● True tax rate: 3.27%
So, you admit not his taxable income. My net worth last year increased over 25%, not my taxable income.
Again, not his taxable income. How stupid do you want to appear?
Yes, equality. That does not mean we are all star athletes, real estate gurus, stock market mavens, etc., but under the eyes of God, or whatever you believe in, we are, as in our Declaration of Independence, created equal. What you do with that is on you. If you don’t become a Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Edison, Ford, Musk, Besos, etc. etc., that is on you. Our government does not guarantee equal outcomes. You can’t be this stupid.
Another ad hominem attack. How surprising. I am a Conservative. You implied in a prior post that I was one of the “wealthy” because I can readily afford to pay my share of the National Debt. So, which is it? Your retardation is becoming to difficult too ignore.
