Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is obvious that your mental depth of field is about as deep as a sheet of paper.
The purpose of the definition of marriage is to promote famlies, and has been the way it is forever (practial terms). It has nothing to do with discrimination. Same sex couples are trying to twist marriage into something it wasn't and isn't. You pervert the meaning of it and then say that its purpose is discrimination?? How assisnine.
the 15% capital gains tax exists to benefit all America because it tends to stimulate investment, which by its very nature, is risky.
Try taking a bit longer view of things, cause right now, you're missing easily 90% of the factors involved. Take the blinders off, open both eyes and see the big picture, and quit trying to twist reality to fit your distorted, perverted "template". Change templates to match reality.
Ok, good comeback but what about the Jim Crow laws, housing discrimination laws, equal pay for equal work, laws prior to the Civil Right Laws? There are still seperatist laws in the south that are still on the books but are not enforced.
Millions of us never got a dime of inheritance and have made a quite comfortable life for ourselves.
Generational poverty is perpetuated by idiot and unfit parents, not taxes.
Not true, there is discrimination of class, sex, ethnicity and religion which is passed down along with the lack of opportunity for those already on the bottom
This year, we hit the 33% marginal tax bracket - alternative minimum tax and all of that. We don't own a home or have kids, so we don't really get to deduct anything.
I'm grateful for our income, and I'm not fundamentally complaining about having to work hard for it and pay my fair share. I know that we're very fortunate.
But why is it fair for my personal share to be up to TWICE the rate of the fair share of people with gargantuan incomes like Romney and Buffett who will never have real financial worries again in their lives? We're doing well, but unlike those guys, we do depend heavily on our cash flow to generate our critical savings for future needs as well as to cover our day-to-day expenses. We get hurt by the loss of that marginal dollar A LOT more than the multi-millionaires and billionaires ever would be.
And why is it "class warfare" whenever I point this out? How is it not "class warfare" for me to be reamed porportionally so much more than the super rich - many of whose enterprises I also have to pay to bail out of their bad business decisions?
I'm not saying that the Buffett rule is the way to go, but why can't we have a tax system that institutes some sense of consistent fairness relative to income all the way across the income spectrum? Why is this concept so fundamentally controversial and anti-American for conservatives?
According to the 2011 Tax Computation Worksheet a person making $27,000 per year pays approximately 13% in taxes. A person making At least 100,000 but not over $139,350 pays 25% and someone earning Over $379,150 pays × 35%.
Apparently, you do not "approve" of someone taking all of the deductions available to them to reduce their tax burden. Perhaps, since you do not have any of these deductions you are jealous.
It is sad how confused you are. The world hates the poor, but in most countries if you are born poor, well, you live and die poor. Here in the USA, it doesn't matter.
Here's a great idea for you. Work your way from poor to not-so-poor, to affluent. Oh, sorry, my bad, that would take effort.
So tell us, how does it feel to be affluent? Obviously you have alot of experience in that field. The way things are set up it is harder for the average american to become wealthy and believe it or not it is not because people are lazy either.
It is obvious that your mental depth of field is about as deep as a sheet of paper.
The purpose of the definition of marriage is to promote famlies, and has been the way it is forever (practial terms). It has nothing to do with discrimination. Same sex couples are trying to twist marriage into something it wasn't and isn't. You pervert the meaning of it and then say that its purpose is discrimination?? How assisnine.
the 15% capital gains tax exists to benefit all America because it tends to stimulate investment, which by its very nature, is risky.
Try taking a bit longer view of things, cause right now, you're missing easily 90% of the factors involved. Take the blinders off, open both eyes and see the big picture, and quit trying to twist reality to fit your distorted, perverted "template". Change templates to match reality.
The central fallacy of your argument is there isn't a damn thing about allowing same sex marriage that prevents heterosexual couples from marrying and having families.
Also marriage is a civil right in terms of asset ownership, inheritance and the ability of one person to make medical decisions for another if that person becomes incapacitated. To deny a person a civil right goes is against the fundamental intent of the United States Constitution as defined by the 14th Amendment.
All which exposes the fact your logic is based on ignorance prejudice and bigotry.
The central fallacy of your argument is there isn't a damn thing about allowing same sex marriage that prevents heterosexual couples from marrying and having families.
Also marriage is a civil right in terms of asset ownership, inheritance and the ability of one person to make medical decisions for another if that person becomes incapacitated. To deny a person a civil right goes is against the fundamental intent of the United States Constitution as defined by the 14th Amendment.
All which exposes the fact your logic is based on ignorance prejudice and bigotry.
You're too funny.
The central fallacy in your thinking is that homosexuals CAN marry - they, just like hetrosexuals, can't, however, marry people of their own sex, or family members etc., same-same. Not getting what you want isn't discrimination, it is just not getting what you want.
Marriage, already weakened by on-damand divorce, will be further damaged.
News flash, marriage is NOT a right, it is a priviledge, and requires, pesky fact following, a license.
If society as a whole feels a need to modify marriage it will. So far, by and large, it doesn't, and I suspect won't, except at the lunatic fringers.
So tell us, how does it feel to be affluent? Obviously you have alot of experience in that field. The way things are set up it is harder for the average american to become wealthy and believe it or not it is not because people are lazy either.
It feels great to be beaded in that direction - not there yet - but moving in that direction. Currently bringing in about $2K a day x 365. That's gross, but it isn't bad. Plus a 6-figure salary on top, and about $100K extra (gross) for Christmas. Work mostly at night, but do so 7 days a week.
I agree that starting off wit Obama in US Senate, Nancy P and Harry R in charge of House and Senate, and then with Obama in WH, it is getting harderr, but is already changing for the better. Pelosi is but an observer, and Reid/Obama will be "relieved" in January after the November landslides hit.
I would beg to differ. American history is basically made of laws whose sole intent it was to discriminate, starting with the original version of the United States Constitution.
Some of these laws such a prohibitions against same sex marriage amongst other still exists solely the discriminate.
The 15% capital gains tax is a law that primarily benefits upper income Americans who are in the best position to take advantage of it. There is a difference between explicit discrimination and laws that imply discrimination by giving one group of people a social, political, or economic, advantage over another.
We're talking about laws that discriminate against the poor. The capital gains tax does NOT apply to only the rich. ANYONE with that type of income benefits. Rich and poor.
There is not explicit discrimination and implied discrimination. There is only discrimination. I'm still waiting for the law that clearly states it is only for the poor.
Speaking of "implied" discrimination - what exactly is your take on affirmative action?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
