jehurey 3,299 Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 12 minutes ago, SheepKilla said: Many of those people came far before the 1950's. And when they came there was tight control along the way - far more than today. And NOT ONE of these people received welfare benefits. They were pretty much thrown onto the street and they worked themselves and their families up. Your narrative is completely skewed Here is Mitt Romney's mother speaking about Mitt Romney's father who came from Mexico as a refugee, they were allowed in with almost no vetting.........and they were given welfare payments for the "first years of their lives" in America. In her own words: I love seeing stupid people who don't know just HOW stupid they really are. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,299 Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said: Yeah, unless they uproot their fucking business and themselves and leave the United States Dumbass Which means they wouldn't do business in the United States. Microsoft would not sell the Xbox on American store shelves. They CANNOT DO BUSINESS in the US without having a registered business address within the United States in which they must do for tax purposes. Its almost like as if you stupidly didn't read the very first thing I typed. Guess Microsoft will make just as much money selling Xboxes in Paraguay. (which they probably would, LOL). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SheepKilla 473 Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Just now, jehurey said: Here is Mitt Romney's mother speaking about Mitt Romney's father who came from Mexico as a refugee, they were allowed in with almost no vetting.........and they were given welfare payments for the "first years of their lives" in America. In her own words: I love seeing stupid people who don't know just HOW stupid they really are. First of all, I watched it and saw her claim repeatedly that her husband worked hard and ate only potatoes, not that he received welfare payments for years. Your logic is SEVERELY flawed. It boils down to: "The thing you're arguing against happened a few times many years ago. Therefore, it's good today, and on a mass scale." This is not an argument. It's stating an anecdote. Also, this is the type of hardworking guy Romney's dad was: This is who you want to import by the millions and consider equivalent: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. House 3,371 Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 18 minutes ago, Goukosan said: I live in the greatest city on earth Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,299 Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 1 minute ago, SheepKilla said: First of all, I watched it and saw her claim repeatedly that her husband worked hard and ate only potatoes, not that he received welfare payments for years. Your logic is SEVERELY flawed. It boils down to: "The thing you're arguing against happened a few times many years ago. Therefore, it's good today, and on a mass scale." This is not an argument. It's stating an anecdote. Also, this is the type of hardworking guy Romney's dad was: This is who you want to import by the millions and consider equivalent: Apply the inverse to your stupid anecdote of immigrants with two mercedes. That wasn't hard. Listen........its obvious that you're just racist. You want white-skinned immigrants, and not those darker-skinned ones. We get it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Goukosan 2,288 Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Ramza said: Haters gonna hate Edited January 23, 2019 by Goukosan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SheepKilla 473 Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Just now, jehurey said: Apply the inverse to your stupid anecdote of immigrants with two mercedes. That wasn't hard. Listen........its obvious that you're just racist. You want white-skinned immigrants, and not those darker-skinned ones. We get it. The two people in that picture are the EXACT SAME skin color! racist? gtfo here. You ran out of valid arguments so you say "racist." Discriminating based on behavior is now racist? One guy is in a suit and tie and obvioulsy a hardworking decent guy. The other is a thug with tattoos on his face posing for a mugshot. And you say these two people are EQUIVALENT. You have NO logic at all to think this way. Liberalism is a disease. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,299 Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 1 minute ago, SheepKilla said: The two people in that picture are the EXACT SAME skin color! racist? gtfo here. You ran out of valid arguments so you say "racist." Discriminating based on behavior is now racist? One guy is in a suit and tie and obvioulsy a hardworking decent guy. The other is a thug with tattoos on his face posing for a mugshot. And you say these two people are EQUIVALENT. You have NO logic at all to think this way. Liberalism is a disease. Immigrants have a lower criminal rate than American citizens. Lower murders, lower felonies, lower rapes. So it seems like you should be okay with the vast majority of immigrants. Nobody is arguing that violent immigrants with criminal records and known associations to violent groups should definitely be kept out. In fact, that was Obama's main immigration security policy. Detain and deport immigrants who had committed violent offenses. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DynamiteCop 2,090 Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 21 minutes ago, jehurey said: Which means they wouldn't do business in the United States. Microsoft would not sell the Xbox on American store shelves. They CANNOT DO BUSINESS in the US without having a registered business address within the United States in which they must do for tax purposes. Its almost like as if you stupidly didn't read the very first thing I typed. Guess Microsoft will make just as much money selling Xboxes in Paraguay. (which they probably would, LOL). Um, they could operate a shell in the US to sell in the US while being under none of its external financial jurisdiction or risk to higher paid employees, or executives. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,299 Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Just now, DynamiteCop! said: Um, they could operate a shell in the US to sell in the US while being under none of its external financial jurisdiction or risk to higher paid employees, or executives. The shell company gets taxed. LOL Sweetie..........if they have US dollar bills, and they seek to transfer that money into a bank account OUTSIDE of the United States. It WILL go through the IRS. There is absolutely no way around that. There are so many things wrong with your stupid attempt at strategizing. Microsoft and Apple are PUBLICLY traded companies. Its not like they can hide this, to begin with, because its going to be publicly available information. Secondly, shell companies are supposed to be established in LOW TAX countries. LOL Apple is (or was) registered in Ireland for their European sales because it was a tax haven. They held the money in Ireland, and not transfer it to the US to avoid paying taxes. Your scenario starts off the with COMPLETE OPPOSITE outcome. LOL Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DynamiteCop 2,090 Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Just now, jehurey said: The shell company gets taxed. LOL Sweetie..........if they have US dollar bills, and they seek to transfer that money into a bank account OUTSIDE of the United States. It WILL go through the IRS. There is absolutely no way around that. There are so many things wrong with your stupid attempt at strategizing. Microsoft and Apple are PUBLICLY traded companies. Its not like they can hide this, to begin with, because its going to be publicly available information. Secondly, shell companies are supposed to be established in LOW TAX countries. LOL Apple is (or was) registered in Ireland for their European sales because it was a tax haven. They held the money in Ireland, and not transfer it to the US to avoid paying taxes. Your scenario starts off the with COMPLETE OPPOSITE outcome. LOL Of course it would get taxed but the rest of the company, their operations, their employees and what they're paid would not be subject to any control of the United States, I know this is hard to understand. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,299 Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Just now, DynamiteCop! said: Of course it would get taxed but the rest of the company, their operations, their employees and what they're paid would not be subject to any control of the United States, I know this is hard to understand. Why would Microsoft care about the tax regulations on their workers? Microsoft doesn't give a shit about Social Security and FICA getting taken out of their worker's paycheck........that's the worker's money being taxed, no Microsoft's money. And secondly...............why are you even ON THIS TANGENT????? We're talking about Ocasio-Cortez's marginal tax rate for people earning OVER TEN MILLION. LOL You really are desperate to find something that doesn't make you look dumb, aren't you? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tears of the Cows 1,237 Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 5 hours ago, Vini said: No. But a policy where being a billionaire becomes impossible is a good policy if you ask me. The rich should enjoy the spoils, but to a certain extent. Nobody needs a billion dollars. Why would anyone continue to work after getting to a certain level? You realize you are removing people’s incentive to work hard by taking away their ability to see income from it, right? Bezo would have shut down amazon years ago if this is the way the world worked. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tears of the Cows 1,237 Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 5 hours ago, jehurey said: ghostz rambling off several posts, but this one is the silliest. Looks like somebody has been reading right-wing websites again. The theory that Ocasio-Cortez is "well-off." Then I guess Dwight D. Eisenhower was a high-schooler. Because the top tax rate for the ultra-rich was 90% back in the 1950's. And it was lowered to 70% all the way until it got to Reagan. So what Ocasio-Cortez is proposing is NOT EVEN NEW, this was being done in this country 40 years ago. This thread is 100% vini, look what he ended up prioritizing over actual policy. She makes 175k a year. She should donate 100k of this obviously. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tears of the Cows 1,237 Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 (edited) If I was a billionaire being forced into a 70% tax I would simply take my business to another country. Yeah sorry, you’re not getting that much of my money because I work hard. The world isnt mario kart. Last place doesn’t get an equalizer for being last, and first place shouldn’t be punished for winning. It wont work and would lead to a massive amount of money being taken out of our country by the top percent. im all for corporation taxes though, but you still run a risk of them simply taking their business elsewhere. Edited January 24, 2019 by ghostz Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tears of the Cows 1,237 Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 10 million may seem like a lot to most people, but to those accustomed to that life style it’s not. For example. 100k seems like a shit ton of money to someone in poverty. Doesn’t mean it is. Doesnt mean someone else deserves that money either. Convince me otherwise Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tears of the Cows 1,237 Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 (edited) IMAGINE making 9 million and being taxed whatever, we will say 50% you end with 4.5 mil now you bust your ASS and get a promotion to 10 mil sorreeeeeee ur take home is now 3 mil! lmao anyone who thinks this will work is delusional Edited January 24, 2019 by ghostz Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Goukosan 2,288 Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, ghostz said: IMAGINE making 9 million and being taxed whatever, we will say 50% you end with 4.5 mil now you bust your ASS and get a promotion to 10 mil sorreeeeeee ur take home is now 3 mil! lmao anyone who thinks this will work is delusional How did I know that ghostz would think that the progressive tax rate literally meant the entire percentage of your entire earnings That's not how a progressive tax rate for earnings over 10 million works bro... must you be clueless with everything? You do know the progressive tax rate she proposed is actually going back to what it used to be for Decades until Reagan changed it in the 80s right? Edited January 24, 2019 by Goukosan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tears of the Cows 1,237 Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, Goukosan said: How did I know that ghostz would think that the progressive tax rate literally meant the entire percentage of your entire earnings That's not how a progressive tax rate for earnings over 10 million works bro... must you be clueless with everything? It’s reallt not much different than how I described, but of course you couldn’t tell me why either way, it won’t work, and it will never be pushed to office. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tears of the Cows 1,237 Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 Matt Stanford’s 33 million contract this year would force him to pay almost 20 million in taxes. LMFAO Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.