"136 countries agree to deal on global minimum tax"

That guarantees Moscow Mitch and republicanettes will block it.

Post by David Hartung
Biden chooses to undercut our national sovereignty. Fortunately this
requires a treaty and a treaty must be approved by two thirds of the Senate.

Agreeing with other countries does not endanger national
sovereignity. Once again we have demonstrated the only thing
republicans abide to is pure contrarianism. You oppose this for
the sole reason those you have decided are enemies are for it.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Discordia: not just a religion but also a parody. This post / \
I am an Andrea Doria sockpuppet. insults Islam. Mohammed

David Hartung

2021-10-09 00:21:52 UTC

That guarantees Moscow Mitch and republicanettes will block it.

As they should.

Post by David Hartung
Biden chooses to undercut our national sovereignty. Fortunately this
requires a treaty and a treaty must be approved by two thirds of the Senate.

Allowing other countries a say in our taxation is undercutting our
sovereignty.

e***@post.com

2021-10-09 00:31:49 UTC

That guarantees Moscow Mitch and republicanettes will block it.

As they should.

True to their obstructionist for obstructiionist's sake nature.

Post by David Hartung
Biden chooses to undercut our national sovereignty. Fortunately this
requires a treaty and a treaty must be approved by two thirds of the Senate.

Allowing other countries a say in our taxation is undercutting our
sovereignty.

And the real reason why you're against a minimum corporate tax, especially for Amazon which pays none, agreed to by 136 countries, including the US, is?

Mitchell Holman

2021-10-09 01:48:40 UTC

Post by David Hartung
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/575962-136-countries-agree-to-deal-o
n-global-minimum-tax
[...]
The Organization for Economic Cooperation Development (OECD) announced
Friday that 136 countries have agreed to a deal on a global minimum
corporate tax of 15 percent.
The deal is a top priority for the Biden administration, which sees
the international tax agreement as a way to prevent U.S. companies
from becoming less competitive if lawmakers raise the U.S. corporate
tax rate.
"This international agreement is proof that the rest of the world
agrees that corporations can and should do more to ensure that we
build back better," President Biden said in a statement.
[...]
Biden chooses to undercut our national sovereignty. Fortunately this
requires a treaty and a treaty must be approved by two thirds of the Senate.

Who told you "this requires a treaty"?

jane playne

2021-10-09 02:23:27 UTC

Post by David Hartung
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/575962-136-countries-agree-to-deal-on-global-minimum-tax
[...]
The Organization for Economic Cooperation Development (OECD) announced
Friday that 136 countries have agreed to a deal on a global minimum
corporate tax of 15 percent.
The deal is a top priority for the Biden administration, which sees the
international tax agreement as a way to prevent U.S. companies from
becoming less competitive if lawmakers raise the U.S. corporate tax rate.
"This international agreement is proof that the rest of the world agrees
that corporations can and should do more to ensure that we build back
better," President Biden said in a statement.
[...]
Biden chooses to undercut our national sovereignty. Fortunately this
requires a treaty and a treaty must be approved by two thirds of the Senate.

.

A tax on corporations is a tax on Teachers, Police, Firemen, ... the average-joe.

SO, who owns Berkshire Hathaway? Retirement funds, institutional investors ... funds for retirement for Teachers, Police, Firemen, ... the average-joe.

55% of Exxon is held by *institutional* investors, retirement funds for teachers, police, firemen, the average joe;
75% of Microsoft is held by *institutional* investors;
60.95% of Apple is held by *institutional* investors;
67.4% of Berkshire Hathaway by *institutional* investors;
72.23% of Home Depot is held by *institutional investors.

SO, with the US corporate tax rate of 21%, a retiree gets to keep 79 cents of a taxed corporate dollar. THEN the retiree pays an additional dividend tax of 15%. The retiree then gets gets to keep the remaining 61.15 cents for his retirement.

That retiree is paying a 32.85% tax rate.

e***@post.com

2021-10-09 04:18:15 UTC

Post by David Hartung
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/575962-136-countries-agree-to-deal-on-global-minimum-tax
[...]
The Organization for Economic Cooperation Development (OECD) announced
Friday that 136 countries have agreed to a deal on a global minimum
corporate tax of 15 percent.
The deal is a top priority for the Biden administration, which sees the
international tax agreement as a way to prevent U.S. companies from
becoming less competitive if lawmakers raise the U.S. corporate tax rate.
"This international agreement is proof that the rest of the world agrees
that corporations can and should do more to ensure that we build back
better," President Biden said in a statement.
[...]
Biden chooses to undercut our national sovereignty. Fortunately this
requires a treaty and a treaty must be approved by two thirds of the Senate.

.
A tax on corporations is a tax on Teachers, Police, Firemen, ... the average-joe.
SO, who owns Berkshire Hathaway? Retirement funds, institutional investors ... funds for retirement for Teachers, Police, Firemen, ... the average-joe.
55% of Exxon is held by *institutional* investors, retirement funds for teachers, police, firemen, the average joe;
75% of Microsoft is held by *institutional* investors;
60.95% of Apple is held by *institutional* investors;
67.4% of Berkshire Hathaway by *institutional* investors;
72.23% of Home Depot is held by *institutional investors.
SO, with the US corporate tax rate of 21%, a retiree gets to keep 79 cents of a taxed corporate dollar. THEN the retiree pays an additional dividend tax of 15%. The retiree then gets gets to keep the remaining 61.15 cents for his retirement.
That retiree is paying a 32.85% tax rate.

How do you get a 32.85% tax rate? And are you saying that no businesses should pay any taxes whatsoever? What makes you think the government won't still tax people at a higher rate to make up for the loss of business tax revenue? What's your dumbfuck stupid point?

BeamMeUpScotty

2021-10-09 12:37:20 UTC

Post by David Hartung
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/575962-136-countries-agree-to-deal-on-global-minimum-tax
[...]
The Organization for Economic Cooperation Development (OECD) announced
Friday that 136 countries have agreed to a deal on a global minimum
corporate tax of 15 percent.
The deal is a top priority for the Biden administration, which sees the
international tax agreement as a way to prevent U.S. companies from
becoming less competitive if lawmakers raise the U.S. corporate tax rate.
"This international agreement is proof that the rest of the world agrees
that corporations can and should do more to ensure that we build back
better," President Biden said in a statement.
[...]
Biden chooses to undercut our national sovereignty. Fortunately this
requires a treaty and a treaty must be approved by two thirds of the Senate.

.
A tax on corporations is a tax on Teachers, Police, Firemen, ... the average-joe.
SO, who owns Berkshire Hathaway? Retirement funds, institutional investors ... funds for retirement for Teachers, Police, Firemen, ... the average-joe.
55% of Exxon is held by *institutional* investors, retirement funds for teachers, police, firemen, the average joe;
75% of Microsoft is held by *institutional* investors;
60.95% of Apple is held by *institutional* investors;
67.4% of Berkshire Hathaway by *institutional* investors;
72.23% of Home Depot is held by *institutional investors.
SO, with the US corporate tax rate of 21%, a retiree gets to keep 79 cents of a taxed corporate dollar. THEN the retiree pays an additional dividend tax of 15%. The retiree then gets gets to keep the remaining 61.15 cents for his retirement.
That retiree is paying a 32.85% tax rate.

All U.S. (Federal) tax law in the United States has to begin in the
HOUSE of Representatives.

And the Senate votes on TREATIES... which means the Senate can't create
a tax law with the Senate. Because it doesn't start as a law in the HOUSE.

ObamaCare had the same PROBLEM first they started the law in the
Senate... and second, the USSC changed the ObamaCare law which means
that the second version that was UNCONSTITUTIONALLY changed by the USSC
into a tax law from a commerce law, which it was passed by the Senate
originally as a commerce law, was a double reversal of the
CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE that all tax laws start in the HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.

The violations of the Constitution were many....

And joining a TREATY that is a tax law can't be done by the President
and the Senate if all FEDERAL TAX LAWS must start in the HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES. Our highest level of taxing is our own FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT and there is no outside entity that can tax the UNITED STATES.

--
That's karma,

Your attempt at mandated assimilation is futile, a successful resistance
is inevitable.

Loading Image...

David Hartung

2021-10-09 13:45:23 UTC

Post by BeamMeUpScotty

Post by David Hartung
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/575962-136-countries-agree-to-deal-on-global-minimum-tax
[...]
The Organization for Economic Cooperation Development (OECD) announced
Friday that 136 countries have agreed to a deal on a global minimum
corporate tax of 15 percent.
The deal is a top priority for the Biden administration, which sees the
international tax agreement as a way to prevent U.S. companies from
becoming less competitive if lawmakers raise the U.S. corporate tax rate.
"This international agreement is proof that the rest of the world agrees
that corporations can and should do more to ensure that we build back
better," President Biden said in a statement.
[...]
Biden chooses to undercut our national sovereignty. Fortunately this
requires a treaty and a treaty must be approved by two thirds of the Senate.

.
A tax on corporations is a tax on Teachers, Police, Firemen, ... the average-joe.
SO, who owns Berkshire Hathaway? Retirement funds, institutional investors ... funds for retirement for Teachers, Police, Firemen, ... the average-joe.
55% of Exxon is held by *institutional* investors, retirement funds for teachers, police, firemen, the average joe;
75% of Microsoft is held by *institutional* investors;
60.95% of Apple is held by *institutional* investors;
67.4% of Berkshire Hathaway by *institutional* investors;
72.23% of Home Depot is held by *institutional investors.
SO, with the US corporate tax rate of 21%, a retiree gets to keep 79 cents of a taxed corporate dollar. THEN the retiree pays an additional dividend tax of 15%. The retiree then gets gets to keep the remaining 61.15 cents for his retirement.
That retiree is paying a 32.85% tax rate.

All U.S. (Federal) tax law in the United States has to begin in the
HOUSE of Representatives.
And the Senate votes on TREATIES... which means the Senate can't create
a tax law with the Senate. Because it doesn't start as a law in the HOUSE.
ObamaCare had the same PROBLEM first they started the law in the
Senate... and second, the USSC changed the ObamaCare law which means
that the second version that was UNCONSTITUTIONALLY changed by the USSC
into a tax law from a commerce law, which it was passed by the Senate
originally as a commerce law, was a double reversal of the
CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE that all tax laws start in the HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
The violations of the Constitution were many....
And joining a TREATY that is a tax law can't be done by the President
and the Senate if all FEDERAL TAX LAWS must start in the HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES. Our highest level of taxing is our own FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT and there is no outside entity that can tax the UNITED STATES.

An agreement between countries to charge a minimum tax is not law in
this country unless it is a treaty ratified by the Senate. Even then the
legislation to do so must originate in the House and be passed by both
houses. This "global minimum tax is not only an assault on national
sovereignty, but it will never become law.

e***@post.com

2021-10-09 13:59:02 UTC

Post by BeamMeUpScotty

Post by David Hartung
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/575962-136-countries-agree-to-deal-on-global-minimum-tax
[...]
The Organization for Economic Cooperation Development (OECD) announced
Friday that 136 countries have agreed to a deal on a global minimum
corporate tax of 15 percent.
The deal is a top priority for the Biden administration, which sees the
international tax agreement as a way to prevent U.S. companies from
becoming less competitive if lawmakers raise the U.S. corporate tax rate.
"This international agreement is proof that the rest of the world agrees
that corporations can and should do more to ensure that we build back
better," President Biden said in a statement.
[...]
Biden chooses to undercut our national sovereignty. Fortunately this
requires a treaty and a treaty must be approved by two thirds of the Senate.

.
A tax on corporations is a tax on Teachers, Police, Firemen, ... the average-joe.
SO, who owns Berkshire Hathaway? Retirement funds, institutional investors ... funds for retirement for Teachers, Police, Firemen, ... the average-joe.
55% of Exxon is held by *institutional* investors, retirement funds for teachers, police, firemen, the average joe;
75% of Microsoft is held by *institutional* investors;
60.95% of Apple is held by *institutional* investors;
67.4% of Berkshire Hathaway by *institutional* investors;
72.23% of Home Depot is held by *institutional investors.
SO, with the US corporate tax rate of 21%, a retiree gets to keep 79 cents of a taxed corporate dollar. THEN the retiree pays an additional dividend tax of 15%. The retiree then gets gets to keep the remaining 61.15 cents for his retirement.
That retiree is paying a 32.85% tax rate.

All U.S. (Federal) tax law in the United States has to begin in the
HOUSE of Representatives.
And the Senate votes on TREATIES... which means the Senate can't create
a tax law with the Senate. Because it doesn't start as a law in the HOUSE.
ObamaCare had the same PROBLEM first they started the law in the
Senate... and second, the USSC changed the ObamaCare law which means
that the second version that was UNCONSTITUTIONALLY changed by the USSC
into a tax law from a commerce law, which it was passed by the Senate
originally as a commerce law, was a double reversal of the
CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE that all tax laws start in the HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
The violations of the Constitution were many....
And joining a TREATY that is a tax law can't be done by the President
and the Senate if all FEDERAL TAX LAWS must start in the HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES. Our highest level of taxing is our own FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT and there is no outside entity that can tax the UNITED STATES.

How is it an assault on national sovereignty when other current agreements, hundreds if not thousands, with various countries aren't? Be realistically specific, not imaginary-minded.

Siri Cruise

2021-10-09 22:20:48 UTC

Post by David Hartung
An agreement between countries to charge a minimum tax is not law in
this country unless it is a treaty ratified by the Senate.

Or a normal tax law passed by Congress.

It is amusing how upset you get on behalf of your owners.

jane playne

2021-10-09 12:47:04 UTC

Post by David Hartung
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/575962-136-countries-agree-to-deal-on-global-minimum-tax
[...]
The Organization for Economic Cooperation Development (OECD) announced
Friday that 136 countries have agreed to a deal on a global minimum
corporate tax of 15 percent.
The deal is a top priority for the Biden administration, which sees the
international tax agreement as a way to prevent U.S. companies from
becoming less competitive if lawmakers raise the U.S. corporate tax rate.
"This international agreement is proof that the rest of the world agrees
that corporations can and should do more to ensure that we build back
better," President Biden said in a statement.
[...]
Biden chooses to undercut our national sovereignty. Fortunately this
requires a treaty and a treaty must be approved by two thirds of the Senate.

.
A tax on corporations is a tax on Teachers, Police, Firemen, ... the average-joe.
SO, who owns Berkshire Hathaway? Retirement funds, institutional investors ... funds for retirement for Teachers, Police, Firemen, ... the average-joe.
55% of Exxon is held by *institutional* investors, retirement funds for teachers, police, firemen, the average joe;
75% of Microsoft is held by *institutional* investors;
60.95% of Apple is held by *institutional* investors;
67.4% of Berkshire Hathaway by *institutional* investors;
72.23% of Home Depot is held by *institutional investors.
SO, with the US corporate tax rate of 21%, a retiree gets to keep 79 cents of a taxed corporate dollar. THEN the retiree pays an additional dividend tax of 15%. The retiree then gets gets to keep the remaining 61.15 cents for his retirement.
That retiree is paying a 32.85% tax rate.

How do you get a 32.85% tax rate?

You have a history of proving that you are deficient in arithmetic.

Post by e***@post.com
And are you saying that no businesses should pay any taxes whatsoever? What makes you think the government won't still tax people at a higher rate to make up for the loss of business tax revenue? What's your dumbfuck stupid point?

David Hartung

2021-10-09 13:41:29 UTC

Post by David Hartung
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/575962-136-countries-agree-to-deal-on-global-minimum-tax
[...]
The Organization for Economic Cooperation Development (OECD) announced
Friday that 136 countries have agreed to a deal on a global minimum
corporate tax of 15 percent.
The deal is a top priority for the Biden administration, which sees the
international tax agreement as a way to prevent U.S. companies from
becoming less competitive if lawmakers raise the U.S. corporate tax rate.
"This international agreement is proof that the rest of the world agrees
that corporations can and should do more to ensure that we build back
better," President Biden said in a statement.
[...]
Biden chooses to undercut our national sovereignty. Fortunately this
requires a treaty and a treaty must be approved by two thirds of the Senate.

.
A tax on corporations is a tax on Teachers, Police, Firemen, ... the average-joe.
SO, who owns Berkshire Hathaway? Retirement funds, institutional investors ... funds for retirement for Teachers, Police, Firemen, ... the average-joe.
55% of Exxon is held by *institutional* investors, retirement funds for teachers, police, firemen, the average joe;
75% of Microsoft is held by *institutional* investors;
60.95% of Apple is held by *institutional* investors;
67.4% of Berkshire Hathaway by *institutional* investors;
72.23% of Home Depot is held by *institutional investors.
SO, with the US corporate tax rate of 21%, a retiree gets to keep 79 cents of a taxed corporate dollar. THEN the retiree pays an additional dividend tax of 15%. The retiree then gets gets to keep the remaining 61.15 cents for his retirement.
That retiree is paying a 32.85% tax rate.

What Jayne is saying, is that taxes are a cost of business and as much
as possible those costs are passed on to the customer in the form of
higher prices.

e***@post.com

2021-10-09 14:10:31 UTC

Post by David Hartung
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/575962-136-countries-agree-to-deal-on-global-minimum-tax
[...]
The Organization for Economic Cooperation Development (OECD) announced
Friday that 136 countries have agreed to a deal on a global minimum
corporate tax of 15 percent.
The deal is a top priority for the Biden administration, which sees the
international tax agreement as a way to prevent U.S. companies from
becoming less competitive if lawmakers raise the U.S. corporate tax rate.
"This international agreement is proof that the rest of the world agrees
that corporations can and should do more to ensure that we build back
better," President Biden said in a statement.
[...]
Biden chooses to undercut our national sovereignty. Fortunately this
requires a treaty and a treaty must be approved by two thirds of the Senate.

.
A tax on corporations is a tax on Teachers, Police, Firemen, ... the average-joe.
SO, who owns Berkshire Hathaway? Retirement funds, institutional investors ... funds for retirement for Teachers, Police, Firemen, ... the average-joe.
55% of Exxon is held by *institutional* investors, retirement funds for teachers, police, firemen, the average joe;
75% of Microsoft is held by *institutional* investors;
60.95% of Apple is held by *institutional* investors;
67.4% of Berkshire Hathaway by *institutional* investors;
72.23% of Home Depot is held by *institutional investors.
SO, with the US corporate tax rate of 21%, a retiree gets to keep 79 cents of a taxed corporate dollar. THEN the retiree pays an additional dividend tax of 15%. The retiree then gets gets to keep the remaining 61.15 cents for his retirement.
That retiree is paying a 32.85% tax rate.

What Jayne is saying, is that taxes are a cost of business and as much
as possible those costs are passed on to the customer in the form of
higher prices.

I know what she's saying, dumbkopf. The question again is: How is it any different whether a business is taxed or not if in the end it's the customer that always pays for the tax? Why tax businesses at all if they're just going to pass that down to the price a consumer has to pay? Whatever a tax rate a business is given is meaningless, it's all for show, to let the public see that okay, Corporation A pays a minimum 15% tax. It makes people feel good that Big Business is paying their "fair share" when, in fact, that "fair share" is coming out of the people's own pockets. So who cares what the minimum tax rate is that 136 countries agreed to? It has no affect on any national sovereignty that you can logically define or explain.

Mitchell Holman

2021-10-09 14:26:20 UTC

wro

Post by David Hartung
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/575962-136-countries-agree-to-d
eal

-on-global-minimum-tax

Post by David Hartung
[...]
The Organization for Economic Cooperation Development (OECD)
announce

Post by David Hartung
Friday that 136 countries have agreed to a deal on a global minimum
corporate tax of 15 percent.
The deal is a top priority for the Biden administration, which
sees t

Post by David Hartung
international tax agreement as a way to prevent U.S. companies from
becoming less competitive if lawmakers raise the U.S. corporate
tax r

ate.

Post by David Hartung
"This international agreement is proof that the rest of the world
agr

ees

Post by David Hartung
that corporations can and should do more to ensure that we build back
better," President Biden said in a statement.
[...]
Biden chooses to undercut our national sovereignty. Fortunately this
requires a treaty and a treaty must be approved by two thirds of
the

Senate.

Post by jane playne
.
A tax on corporations is a tax on Teachers, Police, Firemen, ...
the a

verage-joe.

Post by jane playne
SO, who owns Berkshire Hathaway? Retirement funds, institutional
inves

tors ... funds for retirement for Teachers, Police, Firemen, ... the
average-joe.

Post by jane playne
55% of Exxon is held by *institutional* investors, retirement
funds fo

r teachers, police, firemen, the average joe;

Post by jane playne
75% of Microsoft is held by *institutional* investors;
60.95% of Apple is held by *institutional* investors;
67.4% of Berkshire Hathaway by *institutional* investors;
72.23% of Home Depot is held by *institutional investors.
SO, with the US corporate tax rate of 21%, a retiree gets to keep
79 c

ents of a taxed corporate dollar. THEN the retiree pays an additional
dividend tax of 15%. The retiree then gets gets to keep the remaining
61.15 cents for his retirement.

Post by jane playne
That retiree is paying a 32.85% tax rate.

How do you get a 32.85% tax rate? And are you saying that no
businesses

should pay any taxes whatsoever? What makes you think the government
won't still tax people at a higher rate to make up for the loss of
business tax revenue? What's your dumbfuck stupid point?

Post by David Hartung
What Jayne is saying, is that taxes are a cost of business and as
much as possible those costs are passed on to the customer in the
form of higher prices.

If corporations merely pass on their
costs to the public why do they fight so
hard to eliminate their tax burden?

Blue Lives Matter

2021-10-09 15:44:35 UTC

On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:26:20 -0500, Mitchell Holman

wro

Post by David Hartung
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/575962-136-countries-agree-to-d
eal

-on-global-minimum-tax

Post by David Hartung
[...]
The Organization for Economic Cooperation Development (OECD)
announce

Post by David Hartung
Friday that 136 countries have agreed to a deal on a global minimum
corporate tax of 15 percent.
The deal is a top priority for the Biden administration, which
sees t

Post by David Hartung
international tax agreement as a way to prevent U.S. companies from
becoming less competitive if lawmakers raise the U.S. corporate
tax r

ate.

Post by David Hartung
"This international agreement is proof that the rest of the world
agr

ees

Senate.

Post by jane playne
.
A tax on corporations is a tax on Teachers, Police, Firemen, ...
the a

verage-joe.

Post by jane playne
SO, who owns Berkshire Hathaway? Retirement funds, institutional
inves

tors ... funds for retirement for Teachers, Police, Firemen, ... the
average-joe.

Post by jane playne
55% of Exxon is held by *institutional* investors, retirement
funds fo

r teachers, police, firemen, the average joe;

ents of a taxed corporate dollar. THEN the retiree pays an additional
dividend tax of 15%. The retiree then gets gets to keep the remaining
61.15 cents for his retirement.

Post by jane playne
That retiree is paying a 32.85% tax rate.

How do you get a 32.85% tax rate? And are you saying that no
businesses

should pay any taxes whatsoever? What makes you think the government
won't still tax people at a higher rate to make up for the loss of
business tax revenue? What's your dumbfuck stupid point?

Post by David Hartung
What Jayne is saying, is that taxes are a cost of business and as
much as possible those costs are passed on to the customer in the
form of higher prices.

If corporations merely pass on their
costs to the public why do they fight so
hard to eliminate their tax burden?

To keep their prices competitive, Dimwit.

Rudy Canoza

2021-10-09 16:56:17 UTC

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:26:20 -0500, Mitchell Holman

If corporations merely pass on their
costs to the public why do they fight so
hard to eliminate their tax burden?

To keep their prices competitive, Dimwit.

Mitchell doesn't understand the concept of competition.

You and BlueGirl don't understand tax incidence. Corporate profit taxes are not
passed on to the consumer. They can't be. The tax is not calculated and comes
due until long *after* the transactions between the corporation and consumers
have occurred.

You're stupid, and you like being stupid, which is why you will never complete a
university degree.

David Hartung

2021-10-09 17:00:40 UTC

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:26:20 -0500, Mitchell Holman

If corporations merely pass on their
costs to the public why do they fight so
hard to eliminate their tax burden?

To keep their prices competitive, Dimwit.

Mitchell doesn't understand the concept of competition.

You and BlueGirl don't understand tax incidence. Corporate profit taxes
are not passed on to the consumer. They can't be. The tax is not
calculated and comes due until long *after* the transactions between the
corporation and consumers have occurred.
You're stupid, and you like being stupid, which is why you will never
complete a university degree.

I really find it interesting that you have this need to "prove" yourself
to be smarter than others, and that you do this by denigrating the
intelligence of others.

Rudy Canoza

2021-10-09 17:08:55 UTC

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:26:20 -0500, Mitchell Holman

If corporations merely pass on their
costs to the public why do they fight so
hard to eliminate their tax burden?

To keep their prices competitive, Dimwit.

Mitchell doesn't understand the concept of competition.

You and BlueGirl don't understand tax incidence. Corporate profit taxes are
not passed on to the consumer. They can't be. The tax is not calculated and
comes due until long *after* the transactions between the corporation and
consumers have occurred.
You're stupid, and you like being stupid, which is why you will never complete
a university degree.

I really find it interesting that you have this need to "prove" yourself to be
smarter than others, and that you do this by denigrating the intelligence of
others.

I don't have any such need. The fact is that tax incidence is a subject about
which I know *far* more than you or anyone else here.

Apart from that, it is also a fact that you are stupid and *like* being stupid,
and that explains why you haven't completed a university degree. It's not just
that you *are* stupid, in the sense of not knowing much of anything meaningful
(which you don't), but you have the mentality of someone who simply doesn't know
how to think, and therefore doesn't know how to learn. You are, as I have so
often pointed out, *willfully* stupid.

Mitchell Holman

2021-10-09 14:20:33 UTC

Post by David Hartung
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/575962-136-countries-agree-to-dea
l-on-global-minimum-tax
[...]
The Organization for Economic Cooperation Development (OECD)
announced Friday that 136 countries have agreed to a deal on a
global minimum corporate tax of 15 percent.
The deal is a top priority for the Biden administration, which sees
the international tax agreement as a way to prevent U.S. companies
from becoming less competitive if lawmakers raise the U.S.
corporate tax rate.
"This international agreement is proof that the rest of the world
agrees that corporations can and should do more to ensure that we
build back better," President Biden said in a statement.
[...]
Biden chooses to undercut our national sovereignty. Fortunately
this requires a treaty and a treaty must be approved by two thirds
of the Senate.

.
A tax on corporations is a tax on Teachers, Police, Firemen, ... the average-joe.
SO, who owns Berkshire Hathaway? Retirement funds, institutional
investors ... funds for retirement for Teachers, Police, Firemen,
... the average-joe.
55% of Exxon is held by *institutional* investors, retirement funds
for teachers, police, firemen, the average joe; 75% of Microsoft is
held by *institutional* investors; 60.95% of Apple is held by
*institutional* investors; 67.4% of Berkshire Hathaway by
*institutional* investors; 72.23% of Home Depot is held by
*institutional investors.
SO, with the US corporate tax rate of 21%, a retiree gets to keep 79
cents of a taxed corporate dollar. THEN the retiree pays an
additional dividend tax of 15%. The retiree then gets gets to keep
the remaining 61.15 cents for his retirement.
That retiree is paying a 32.85% tax rate.

How do you get a 32.85% tax rate? And are you saying that no
businesses should pay any taxes whatsoever? What makes you think the
government won't still tax people at a higher rate to make up for the
loss of business tax revenue? What's your dumbfuck stupid point?

What Jayne is saying, is that taxes are a cost of business and as much
as possible those costs are passed on to the customer in the form of
higher prices.

So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

Blue Lives Matter

2021-10-09 15:43:44 UTC

On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/575962-136-countries-agree-to-dea
l-on-global-minimum-tax
[...]
The Organization for Economic Cooperation Development (OECD)
announced Friday that 136 countries have agreed to a deal on a
global minimum corporate tax of 15 percent.
The deal is a top priority for the Biden administration, which sees
the international tax agreement as a way to prevent U.S. companies
from becoming less competitive if lawmakers raise the U.S.
corporate tax rate.
"This international agreement is proof that the rest of the world
agrees that corporations can and should do more to ensure that we
build back better," President Biden said in a statement.
[...]
Biden chooses to undercut our national sovereignty. Fortunately
this requires a treaty and a treaty must be approved by two thirds
of the Senate.

.
A tax on corporations is a tax on Teachers, Police, Firemen, ... the average-joe.
SO, who owns Berkshire Hathaway? Retirement funds, institutional
investors ... funds for retirement for Teachers, Police, Firemen,
... the average-joe.
55% of Exxon is held by *institutional* investors, retirement funds
for teachers, police, firemen, the average joe; 75% of Microsoft is
held by *institutional* investors; 60.95% of Apple is held by
*institutional* investors; 67.4% of Berkshire Hathaway by
*institutional* investors; 72.23% of Home Depot is held by
*institutional investors.
SO, with the US corporate tax rate of 21%, a retiree gets to keep 79
cents of a taxed corporate dollar. THEN the retiree pays an
additional dividend tax of 15%. The retiree then gets gets to keep
the remaining 61.15 cents for his retirement.
That retiree is paying a 32.85% tax rate.

How do you get a 32.85% tax rate? And are you saying that no
businesses should pay any taxes whatsoever? What makes you think the
government won't still tax people at a higher rate to make up for the
loss of business tax revenue? What's your dumbfuck stupid point?

What Jayne is saying, is that taxes are a cost of business and as much
as possible those costs are passed on to the customer in the form of
higher prices.

So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs, they get
covered by consumers.

David Hartung

2021-10-09 16:15:27 UTC

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs, they get
covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on the part of the
poster.

Mitchell Holman

2021-10-09 18:18:58 UTC

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs, they get
covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on the part of the
poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

jane playne

2021-10-10 02:21:50 UTC

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs, they get
covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on the part of the
poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/

Mitchell Holman

2021-10-10 02:54:36 UTC

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs, they get
covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data
-2020-update/

Tax rates are meaningless to corporate "persons"
who don't pay them.

55 Corporations Paid $0 in Federal Taxes on 2020 Profits
April 2, 2021

At least 55 of the largest corporations
in America paid no federal corporate
income taxes in their most recent fiscal
year despite enjoying substantial pretax
profits in the United States. This continues
a decades-long trend of corporate tax
avoidance by the biggest U.S. corporations,
and it appears to be the product of long-
standing tax breaks preserved or expanded
by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) as
well as the CARES Act tax breaks enacted in
the spring of 2020.

The 55 corporations would have paid a
collective total of $8.5 billion for the
year had they paid that rate on their 2020
income. Instead, they received $3.5 billion
in tax rebates.

Their total corporate tax breaks for 2020,
including $8.5 billion in tax avoidance and
$3.5 billion in rebates, comes to $12 billion.

https://itep.org/55-profitable-corporations-zero-corporate-tax/

jane playne

2021-10-10 03:53:52 UTC

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs, they get
covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data
-2020-update/

Tax rates are meaningless to corporate "persons"
who don't pay them.
55 Corporations Paid $0 in Federal Taxes on 2020 Profits
April 2, 2021
At least 55 of the largest corporations
in America paid no federal corporate
income taxes in their most recent fiscal
year despite enjoying substantial pretax
profits in the United States. This continues
a decades-long trend of corporate tax
avoidance by the biggest U.S. corporations,
and it appears to be the product of long-
standing tax breaks preserved or expanded
by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) as
well as the CARES Act tax breaks enacted in
the spring of 2020.
The 55 corporations would have paid a
collective total of $8.5 billion for the
year had they paid that rate on their 2020
income. Instead, they received $3.5 billion
in tax rebates.
Their total corporate tax breaks for 2020,
including $8.5 billion in tax avoidance and
$3.5 billion in rebates, comes to $12 billion.
https://itep.org/55-profitable-corporations-zero-corporate-tax/

.

https://www.yahoo.com/now/stop-shaming-corporations-meaninglessly-low-100600708.html

Rudy Canoza

2021-10-10 04:24:07 UTC

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs, they get
covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data
-2020-update/

Tax rates are meaningless to corporate "persons"
who don't pay them.
55 Corporations Paid $0 in Federal Taxes on 2020 Profits
April 2, 2021
At least 55 of the largest corporations
in America paid no federal corporate
income taxes in their most recent fiscal
year despite enjoying substantial pretax
profits in the United States. This continues
a decades-long trend of corporate tax
avoidance by the biggest U.S. corporations,
and it appears to be the product of long-
standing tax breaks preserved or expanded
by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) as
well as the CARES Act tax breaks enacted in
the spring of 2020.
The 55 corporations would have paid a
collective total of $8.5 billion for the
year had they paid that rate on their 2020
income. Instead, they received $3.5 billion
in tax rebates.
Their total corporate tax breaks for 2020,
including $8.5 billion in tax avoidance and
$3.5 billion in rebates, comes to $12 billion.
https://itep.org/55-profitable-corporations-zero-corporate-tax/

.
https://www.yahoo.com/now/

fuck off, not-jane, you mackerel-reeking cunt. YouTube videos not allowed.

David Hartung

2021-10-10 09:21:31 UTC

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs, they get
covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data
-2020-update/

Tax rates are meaningless to corporate "persons"
who don't pay them.
55 Corporations Paid $0 in Federal Taxes on 2020 Profits
April 2, 2021
At least 55 of the largest corporations
in America paid no federal corporate
income taxes in their most recent fiscal
year despite enjoying substantial pretax
profits in the United States. This continues
a decades-long trend of corporate tax
avoidance by the biggest U.S. corporations,
and it appears to be the product of long-
standing tax breaks preserved or expanded
by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) as
well as the CARES Act tax breaks enacted in
the spring of 2020.
The 55 corporations would have paid a
collective total of $8.5 billion for the
year had they paid that rate on their 2020
income. Instead, they received $3.5 billion
in tax rebates.
Their total corporate tax breaks for 2020,
including $8.5 billion in tax avoidance and
$3.5 billion in rebates, comes to $12 billion.
https://itep.org/55-profitable-corporations-zero-corporate-tax/

.
https://www.yahoo.com/now/

fuck off, not-jane, you mackerel-reeking cunt. YouTube videos not allowed.

You do not make the rules.

Siri Cruise

2021-10-10 14:55:54 UTC

Post by David Hartung
You do not make the rules.

You want the minority make the rules instead.

Rudy Canoza

2021-10-10 14:58:41 UTC

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs, they get
covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data
-2020-update/

Tax rates are meaningless to corporate "persons"
who don't pay them.
55 Corporations Paid $0 in Federal Taxes on 2020 Profits
April 2, 2021
At least 55 of the largest corporations
in America paid no federal corporate
income taxes in their most recent fiscal
year despite enjoying substantial pretax
profits in the United States. This continues
a decades-long trend of corporate tax
avoidance by the biggest U.S. corporations,
and it appears to be the product of long-
standing tax breaks preserved or expanded
by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) as
well as the CARES Act tax breaks enacted in
the spring of 2020.
The 55 corporations would have paid a
collective total of $8.5 billion for the
year had they paid that rate on their 2020
income. Instead, they received $3.5 billion
in tax rebates.
Their total corporate tax breaks for 2020,
including $8.5 billion in tax avoidance and
$3.5 billion in rebates, comes to $12 billion.
https://itep.org/55-profitable-corporations-zero-corporate-tax/

.
https://www.yahoo.com/now/

fuck off, not-jane, you mackerel-reeking cunt. YouTube videos not allowed.

You do not make the rules.

I didn't claim I did, bitch. I'm telling you what the rules are.

Klaus Schadenfreude

2021-10-10 15:04:59 UTC

Post by Rudy Canoza

fuck off, not-jane, you mackerel-reeking cunt. YouTube videos not allowed.

You do not make the rules.

I didn't claim I did, bitch. I'm telling you what the rules are.

Our poor little dwarf thinks he knows what "the rules" are.

I have already given permission for You Tube videos to be used.

And we all know Rudy won't say a damn thing about THAT!

Why?

"If I don't respond directly to you, it's because I'm displaying my
cowardice and my fear of you. I'm in terror of you. That's why I won't
respond to you directly. I'm a fucking punk coward!
- "Rudy Canoza"
Message-ID: <GcV3D.419335$***@fx42.iad>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 22:20:39 -0700

David Hartung

2021-10-10 12:56:27 UTC

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs, they get
covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on the part of the
poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/

You may have a typo, the site shows that the top 50% pay 97.1%, other
than that this s good, but don't expect it to make any difference. Our
left wing friends will still complain that the high income people don't
pay enough.
I do have a suggestion however. 60% of Americans no receive more from
the Federal government in transfer income than they pay in taxes, why
not simply drop the bottom 20%, or even 40% off the tax roles completely?
https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-receive-more-transfer-income-they-pay-taxes
Such a shift would be a way to actually help those people.

David Hartung

2021-10-10 09:19:48 UTC

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs, they get
covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on the part of the
poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/

You may have a typo, the site shows that the top 50% pay 97.1%, other
than that this s good, but don't expect it to make any difference. Our
left wing friends will still complain that the high income people don't
pay enough.

I do have a suggestion however. 60% of Americans no receive more from
the Federal government in transfer income than they pay in taxes, why
not simply drop the bottom 20%, or even 40% off the tax roles completely?

https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-receive-more-transfer-income-they-pay-taxes

Such a shift would be a way to actually help those people.

jane playne

2021-10-11 13:29:47 UTC

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs, they get
covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on the part of the
poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/

.

I have no idea were this discussion of 97.1% came from. I was responding to Mitchell's statement:

"Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not."

And my response was illustrating that the top 1% have a higher average tax rate than any other segment.

AND I agree with you about it not making any difference to the left. Mitchell will continue saying that the rich do not pay their share (if any) of taxes.

... AND we have lost Siri in the discussion about double taxation.

Mitchell Holman

2021-10-11 18:25:57 UTC

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs, they
get covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-d
ata-2020-update/

You may have a typo, the site shows that the top 50% pay 97.1%, other
than that this s good, but don't expect it to make any difference.
Our left wing friends will still complain that the high income people
don't pay enough.
I do have a suggestion however. 60% of Americans no receive more from
the Federal government in transfer income than they pay in taxes, why
not simply drop the bottom 20%, or even 40% off the tax roles
completely?
https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-receive-more-trans
fer-income-they-pay-taxes
Such a shift would be a way to actually help those people.

.
I have no idea were this discussion of 97.1% came from. I was
"Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not."
And my response was illustrating that the top 1% have a higher average
tax rate than any other segment.

And you ignored my point about the
rich not paying taxes AT ALL.

Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records
Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid
Income Tax
June 8

In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and
now the worlds richest man, did not pay a penny
in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again
in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-
richest person in the world, also paid no federal
income taxes.

Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent
years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice.
George Soros paid no federal income tax three years
in a row.

We compared how much in taxes the 25 richest
Americans paid each year to how much Forbes
estimated their wealth grew in that same time
period. The results are stark. According to Forbes,
those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective
$401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total
of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those
five years, the IRS data shows. Thats a staggering
sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.
https://tinyurl.com/9rw8t2vz

Post by jane playne
AND I agree with you about it not making any difference to the left.
Mitchell will continue saying that the rich do not pay their share (if
any) of taxes.

The rich DON'T pay their share of taxes.

Fact.

Trump didn't pay income tax for 10 of 15 years
before 2016 election
09/27/20

President Trump paid no income taxes for 10
of the 15 years before he was elected president,
and just $750 a year in 2016 and 2017, according
to The New York Times, which obtained the
president's tax information for the last 20 years.
https://tinyurl.com/4mhkdzac

David Hartung

2021-10-11 19:04:49 UTC

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs, they
get covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-d
ata-2020-update/

You may have a typo, the site shows that the top 50% pay 97.1%, other
than that this s good, but don't expect it to make any difference.
Our left wing friends will still complain that the high income people
don't pay enough.
I do have a suggestion however. 60% of Americans no receive more from
the Federal government in transfer income than they pay in taxes, why
not simply drop the bottom 20%, or even 40% off the tax roles completely?
https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-receive-more-trans
fer-income-they-pay-taxes
Such a shift would be a way to actually help those people.

And you ignored my point about the
rich not paying taxes AT ALL.
Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records
Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid
Income Tax
June 8
In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and
now the world’s richest man, did not pay a penny
in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again
in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-
richest person in the world, also paid no federal
income taxes.
Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent
years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice.
George Soros paid no federal income tax three years
in a row.
We compared how much in taxes the 25 richest
Americans paid each year to how much Forbes
estimated their wealth grew in that same time
period. The results are stark. According to Forbes,
those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective
$401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total
of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those
five years, the IRS data shows. That’s a staggering
sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.
https://tinyurl.com/9rw8t2vz

Post by jane playne
AND I agree with you about it not making any difference to the left.
Mitchell will continue saying that the rich do not pay their share (if
any) of taxes.

The rich DON'T pay their share of taxes.

Yet as a group, the top 1% pay a higher percentage of total income in
taxes than any other group. You are cherry picking a few people an
claiming that they are the norm. By any definition that is a lie.

Mitchell Holman

2021-10-12 01:49:49 UTC

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs, they
get covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-

Post by jane playne
ata-2020-update/

You may have a typo, the site shows that the top 50% pay 97.1%, other
than that this s good, but don't expect it to make any difference.
Our left wing friends will still complain that the high income people
don't pay enough.
I do have a suggestion however. 60% of Americans no receive more from
the Federal government in transfer income than they pay in taxes, why
not simply drop the bottom 20%, or even 40% off the tax roles completely?
https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-receive-more-

trans

fer-income-they-pay-taxes
Such a shift would be a way to actually help those people.

And you ignored my point about the
rich not paying taxes AT ALL.
Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records
Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid
Income Tax
June 8
In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and
now the worldâs richest man, did not pay a penny
in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again
in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-
richest person in the world, also paid no federal
income taxes.
Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent
years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice.
George Soros paid no federal income tax three years
in a row.
We compared how much in taxes the 25 richest
Americans paid each year to how much Forbes
estimated their wealth grew in that same time
period. The results are stark. According to Forbes,
those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective
$401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total
of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those
five years, the IRS data shows. Thatâs a staggering
sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.
https://tinyurl.com/9rw8t2vz

Post by jane playne
AND I agree with you about it not making any difference to the left.
Mitchell will continue saying that the rich do not pay their share (if
any) of taxes.

The rich DON'T pay their share of taxes.

Yet as a group, the top 1% pay a higher percentage of total income in
taxes than any other group.

Wrong. They have a higher tax rate, but that
says nothing about what they actually PAY.

Post by David Hartung
You are cherry picking a few people an
claiming that they are the norm.

Why are you making excuses for tax dodgers?

Are you proud of paying more taxes than they do ?

jane playne

2021-10-12 02:35:25 UTC

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs, they
get covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-

Post by jane playne
ata-2020-update/

You may have a typo, the site shows that the top 50% pay 97.1%,

other

than that this s good, but don't expect it to make any difference.
Our left wing friends will still complain that the high income

people

don't pay enough.
I do have a suggestion however. 60% of Americans no receive more

from

the Federal government in transfer income than they pay in taxes,

why

not simply drop the bottom 20%, or even 40% off the tax roles completely?
https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-receive-more-

trans

fer-income-they-pay-taxes
Such a shift would be a way to actually help those people.

.
I have no idea were this discussion of 97.1% came from. I was
"Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not."
And my response was illustrating that the top 1% have a higher

average

tax rate than any other segment.

And you ignored my point about the
rich not paying taxes AT ALL.
Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records
Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid
Income Tax
June 8
In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and
now the world’s richest man, did not pay a penny
in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again
in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-
richest person in the world, also paid no federal
income taxes.
Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent
years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice.
George Soros paid no federal income tax three years
in a row.
We compared how much in taxes the 25 richest
Americans paid each year to how much Forbes
estimated their wealth grew in that same time
period. The results are stark. According to Forbes,
those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective
$401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total
of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those
five years, the IRS data shows. That’s a staggering
sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.
https://tinyurl.com/9rw8t2vz

AND I agree with you about it not making any difference to the left.
Mitchell will continue saying that the rich do not pay their share

(if

any) of taxes.

The rich DON'T pay their share of taxes.

Yet as a group, the top 1% pay a higher percentage of total income in
taxes than any other group.

Wrong. They have a higher tax rate, but that
says nothing about what they actually PAY.

Bull shit! Support your claim!
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update

Post by David Hartung
You are cherry picking a few people an
claiming that they are the norm.

Why are you making excuses for tax dodgers?

.

You are a perfect example why the Framers of our Constitution did not want the general public to vote for any federal official other than their one representative.

I have seen your examples of wealthy people who pay no taxes many times before. There are many reasons why wealthy individuals pay no federal income tax in some years.

As for Bezos, he had two years where he paid no federal income tax. Bezos is an investor and had made some bad investments. As a result, he had investment losses that exceeded his investment gains during two years.

From YOUR citation: “He [Bezos] was able to offset every penny he earned with losses from side investments and various deductions”.

Pro Publica has fed you and other lemmings bull shit and you lapped up every bit of it. NOW, let’s take a look the bull shit you ate from your source, Pro Publica.

“His tax AVOIDANCE is even more striking if you examine 2006 to 2018 ... Bezos’ WEALTH increased by $127 billion, ... but he reported a total of $6.5 billion in income. The $1.4 billion he paid in personal federal taxes is a massive number — yet it amounts to a 1.1% TRUE TAX rate on the rise in his FORTUNE[wealth]. (caps added by me for emphasis)

Pro Publica is calculating the taxes paid during those years as a percentage of WEALTH INCREASE [fortune]. We do not have a WEALTH TAX, we have an INCOME tax. Over the years 2006-2018, Bezos had two years of no income … AND his average income tax, INCLUDING THOSE TWO YEAR OF NO INCOME, is 21.5%

“We compared ... taxes .. paid … to how much ... their wealth grew. … WE’ER [Pro Publica] going to call this their TRUE TAX rate.” (Pro Publica)

That is pure bull shit; it is NOT “true tax rate” it is wealth tax; True tax rate is 100*tax/income.

(I capitalized the word AVOIDANCE that Pro Publica used above, because there was NO avoidance)

Post by e***@post.com
Are you proud of paying more taxes than they do ?

I pay less that 21.5%

Mitchell Holman

2021-10-12 13:23:35 UTC

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 2:19:05 PM UTC-4, Mitchell
Holman

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs,
they get covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-t
ax-

ata-2020-update/

You may have a typo, the site shows that the top 50% pay 97.1%,

other

than that this s good, but don't expect it to make any
difference.
Our left wing friends will still complain that the high income

people

don't pay enough.
I do have a suggestion however. 60% of Americans no receive more

from

the Federal government in transfer income than they pay in taxes,

why

not simply drop the bottom 20%, or even 40% off the tax roles completely?
https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-receive-more-

trans

fer-income-they-pay-taxes
Such a shift would be a way to actually help those people.

.
I have no idea were this discussion of 97.1% came from. I was
"Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not."
And my response was illustrating that the top 1% have a higher

average

tax rate than any other segment.

And you ignored my point about the
rich not paying taxes AT ALL.
Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records
Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid
Income Tax
June 8
In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and
now the worldâs richest man, did not pay a penny
in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again
in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-
richest person in the world, also paid no federal
income taxes.
Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent
years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice.
George Soros paid no federal income tax three years
in a row.
We compared how much in taxes the 25 richest
Americans paid each year to how much Forbes
estimated their wealth grew in that same time
period. The results are stark. According to Forbes,
those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective
$401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total
of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those
five years, the IRS data shows. Thatâs a staggering
sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.
https://tinyurl.com/9rw8t2vz

AND I agree with you about it not making any difference to the left.
Mitchell will continue saying that the rich do not pay their share

(if

any) of taxes.

The rich DON'T pay their share of taxes.

Yet as a group, the top 1% pay a higher percentage of total income in
taxes than any other group.

Wrong. They have a higher tax rate, but that
says nothing about what they actually PAY.

Bull shit! Support your claim!

I didn't make the claim that the top 1%
actually pays taxes at posted rate, Hartung
did.

Post by jane playne
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data
-2020-update

Post by David Hartung
You are cherry picking a few people an
claiming that they are the norm.

Why are you making excuses for tax dodgers?

.
You are a perfect example why the Framers of our Constitution did not
want the general public to vote for any federal official other than
their one representative.

The president is not a federal official?

Post by jane playne
I have seen your examples of wealthy people who pay no taxes many
times before. There are many reasons why wealthy individuals pay no
federal income tax in some years.

You just made my point. If the wealthy get
away with paying NO tax then it is safe bet they
aren't paying the full tax. Trump pays $750 federal
income tax and that is "a higher percentage than any
other group"? Hartung himself pays more in taxes
than that.

No wonder he won't defend his claim.

Post by jane playne
As for Bezos, he had two years where he paid no federal income tax.
Bezos is an investor and had made some bad investments. As a result,
he had investment losses that exceeded his investment gains during two
years.
From YOUR citation: âHe [Bezos] was able to offset every penny he
earned with losses from side investments and various deductionsâ.
Pro Publica has fed you and other lemmings bull shit and you lapped up
every bit of it. NOW, letâs take a look the bull shit you ate from
your source, Pro Publica.
âHis tax AVOIDANCE is even more striking if you examine 2006 to 2018
... Bezosâ WEALTH increased by $127 billion, ... but he reported a
total of $6.5 billion in income. The $1.4 billion he paid in personal
federal taxes is a massive number â yet it amounts to a 1.1% TRUE
TAX rate on the rise in his FORTUNE[wealth]. (caps added by me for
emphasis)
Pro Publica is calculating the taxes paid during those years as a
percentage of WEALTH INCREASE [fortune]. We do not have a WEALTH TAX,
we have an INCOME tax. Over the years 2006-2018, Bezos had two years
of no income âŠ AND his average income tax, INCLUDING THOSE TWO YEAR
OF NO INCOME, is 21.5%
âWe compared ... taxes .. paid âŠ to how much ... their wealth
grew. âŠ WEâER [Pro Publica] going to call this their TRUE TAX
rate.â (Pro Publica)
That is pure bull shit; it is NOT âtrue tax rateâ it is wealth
tax; True tax rate is 100*tax/income.
(I capitalized the word AVOIDANCE that Pro Publica used above, because
there was NO avoidance)

Post by e***@post.com
Are you proud of paying more taxes than they do ?

I pay less that 21.5%

jane playne

2021-10-13 02:33:38 UTC

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 2:19:05 PM UTC-4, Mitchell
Holman

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs,
they get covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-t
ax-

ata-2020-update/

You may have a typo, the site shows that the top 50% pay 97.1%,

other

than that this s good, but don't expect it to make any
difference.
Our left wing friends will still complain that the high income

people

don't pay enough.
I do have a suggestion however. 60% of Americans no receive more

from

the Federal government in transfer income than they pay in taxes,

why

not simply drop the bottom 20%, or even 40% off the tax roles completely?
https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-receive-more-

trans

fer-income-they-pay-taxes
Such a shift would be a way to actually help those people.

.
I have no idea were this discussion of 97.1% came from. I was
"Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not."
And my response was illustrating that the top 1% have a higher

average

tax rate than any other segment.

And you ignored my point about the
rich not paying taxes AT ALL.
Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records
Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid
Income Tax
June 8
In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and
now the world’s richest man, did not pay a penny
in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again
in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-
richest person in the world, also paid no federal
income taxes.
Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent
years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice.
George Soros paid no federal income tax three years
in a row.
We compared how much in taxes the 25 richest
Americans paid each year to how much Forbes
estimated their wealth grew in that same time
period. The results are stark. According to Forbes,
those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective
$401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total
of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those
five years, the IRS data shows. That’s a staggering
sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.
https://tinyurl.com/9rw8t2vz

AND I agree with you about it not making any difference to the left.
Mitchell will continue saying that the rich do not pay their share

(if

any) of taxes.

The rich DON'T pay their share of taxes.

Yet as a group, the top 1% pay a higher percentage of total income in
taxes than any other group.

Wrong. They have a higher tax rate, but that
says nothing about what they actually PAY.

Bull shit! Support your claim!

I didn't make the claim that the top 1%
actually pays taxes at posted rate, Hartung
did.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data
-2020-update

Post by David Hartung
You are cherry picking a few people an
claiming that they are the norm.

Why are you making excuses for tax dodgers?

.
You are a perfect example why the Framers of our Constitution did not
want the general public to vote for any federal official other than
their one representative.

The president is not a federal official?

.

Read the Constitution.
The Framers never intended the dumb masses to vote for the president. Each state selects a group of learned men, called Electors, and the Electors chose a president. The Framers never stated that the public get to vote for the state's electors. The Constitution states that the legislatures of each state choose the manner of selecting the electors.

Even today, you do not vote for the president; you vote for a slate of electors. Those electors then vote for the president.

I have seen your examples of wealthy people who pay no taxes many
times before. There are many reasons why wealthy individuals pay no
federal income tax in some years.

You just made my point. If the wealthy get

.

You are wrong; I did not make your point.
I chose the simplest example possible AND I used quotes from YOUR citation. There was nothing for you to dispute; neither the example nor the source.

EVEN THEN, you didn’t get it.

If cash-in is less than cash-out, there is NO income. NO income results in no INCOME tax. Bezos did not GETAWAY with paying no tax; he had NO INCOME. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Pro Publica had to create a new name, “True Tax”, to disguise that they were calculating WEALTH tax. Why didn’t they just call it what it is?

Pro Publica did not tell the ACTUAL income tax rates of the guys in their examples because the ACTUAL income tax rates do not support their bull shit agenda. Pro Publica did provide the data needed to do the actual *income tax rate" calculations. Using data from Pro Publica, here is the actual average INCOME TAX rate that Buffet, Bezos, and Musk paid for the years 2014-2017:

Warren Buffet 19.0%
Bezos 23.1%
Elon Musk 29.9%

Post by Mitchell Holman
away with paying NO tax then it is safe bet they
aren't paying the full tax. Trump pays $750 federal
income tax and that is "a higher percentage than any
other group"? Hartung himself pays more in taxes
than that.
No wonder he won't defend his claim.

As for Bezos, he had two years where he paid no federal income tax.
Bezos is an investor and had made some bad investments. As a result,
he had investment losses that exceeded his investment gains during two
years.
From YOUR citation: “He [Bezos] was able to offset every penny he
earned with losses from side investments and various deductions”.
Pro Publica has fed you and other lemmings bull shit and you lapped up
every bit of it. NOW, let’s take a look the bull shit you ate from
your source, Pro Publica.
“His tax AVOIDANCE is even more striking if you examine 2006 to 2018
... Bezos’ WEALTH increased by $127 billion, ... but he reported a
total of $6.5 billion in income. The $1.4 billion he paid in personal
federal taxes is a massive number — yet it amounts to a 1.1% TRUE
TAX rate on the rise in his FORTUNE[wealth]. (caps added by me for
emphasis)
Pro Publica is calculating the taxes paid during those years as a
percentage of WEALTH INCREASE [fortune]. We do not have a WEALTH TAX,
we have an INCOME tax. Over the years 2006-2018, Bezos had two years
of no income … AND his average income tax, INCLUDING THOSE TWO YEAR
OF NO INCOME, is 21.5%
“We compared ... taxes .. paid … to how much ... their wealth
grew. … WE’ER [Pro Publica] going to call this their TRUE TAX
rate.” (Pro Publica)
That is pure bull shit; it is NOT “true tax rate” it is wealth
tax; True tax rate is 100*tax/income.
(I capitalized the word AVOIDANCE that Pro Publica used above, because
there was NO avoidance)

Post by e***@post.com
Are you proud of paying more taxes than they do ?

I pay less that 21.5%

Wayne Autrey

2021-10-13 05:28:52 UTC

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 2:19:05 PM UTC-4, Mitchell
Holman

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs,
they get covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-t
ax-

ata-2020-update/

You may have a typo, the site shows that the top 50% pay 97.1%,

other

than that this s good, but don't expect it to make any
difference.
Our left wing friends will still complain that the high income

people

don't pay enough.
I do have a suggestion however. 60% of Americans no receive more

from

the Federal government in transfer income than they pay in taxes,

why

not simply drop the bottom 20%, or even 40% off the tax roles completely?
https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-receive-more-

trans

fer-income-they-pay-taxes
Such a shift would be a way to actually help those people.

.
I have no idea were this discussion of 97.1% came from. I was
"Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not."
And my response was illustrating that the top 1% have a higher

average

tax rate than any other segment.

And you ignored my point about the
rich not paying taxes AT ALL.
Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records
Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid
Income Tax
June 8
In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and
now the world’s richest man, did not pay a penny
in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again
in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-
richest person in the world, also paid no federal
income taxes.
Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent
years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice.
George Soros paid no federal income tax three years
in a row.
We compared how much in taxes the 25 richest
Americans paid each year to how much Forbes
estimated their wealth grew in that same time
period. The results are stark. According to Forbes,
those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective
$401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total
of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those
five years, the IRS data shows. That’s a staggering
sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.
https://tinyurl.com/9rw8t2vz

AND I agree with you about it not making any difference to the left.
Mitchell will continue saying that the rich do not pay their share

(if

any) of taxes.

The rich DON'T pay their share of taxes.

Yet as a group, the top 1% pay a higher percentage of total income in
taxes than any other group.

Wrong. They have a higher tax rate, but that
says nothing about what they actually PAY.

Bull shit! Support your claim!

I didn't make the claim that the top 1%
actually pays taxes at posted rate, Hartung
did.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data
-2020-update

Post by David Hartung
You are cherry picking a few people an
claiming that they are the norm.

Why are you making excuses for tax dodgers?

.
You are a perfect example why the Framers of our Constitution did not
want the general public to vote for any federal official other than
their one representative.

The president is not a federal official?

.
Read the Constitution.
The Framers never intended the dumb masses to vote for the president.

We are not bound by what the slave-owning "Framers" intended, not-jane, you
mackerel-reeking cunt. They got that wrong. The slave-owning "Framers" gave us
the framework to correct that egregious error. We should do it.

There is *nothing* in the evolution (yes!) of our political and legal history
that says we should not move to adopt a popularly elected president. There is
*nothing* in the structure of our federal government that says the president
should *not* be popularly elected. Popular election of the president has *no*
implications for either federalism or separation of powers. You *know* this,
not-jane, you mackerel-reeking cunt. You know it because I have instructed you
in it numerous times.

Mitchell Holman

2021-10-13 13:19:06 UTC

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 2:19:05 PM UTC-4, Mitchell
Holman

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs,
they get covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income
-t ax-

ata-2020-update/

You may have a typo, the site shows that the top 50% pay 97.1%,

other

than that this s good, but don't expect it to make any
difference.
Our left wing friends will still complain that the high income

people

don't pay enough.
I do have a suggestion however. 60% of Americans no receive more

from

the Federal government in transfer income than they pay in taxes,

why

not simply drop the bottom 20%, or even 40% off the tax roles completely?
https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-receive-mor
e-

trans

fer-income-they-pay-taxes
Such a shift would be a way to actually help those people.

.
I have no idea were this discussion of 97.1% came from. I was
"Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not."
And my response was illustrating that the top 1% have a higher

average

tax rate than any other segment.

And you ignored my point about the
rich not paying taxes AT ALL.
Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records
Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid
Income Tax
June 8
In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and
now the worldâs richest man, did not pay a penny
in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again
in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-
richest person in the world, also paid no federal
income taxes.
Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent
years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice.
George Soros paid no federal income tax three years
in a row.
We compared how much in taxes the 25 richest
Americans paid each year to how much Forbes
estimated their wealth grew in that same time
period. The results are stark. According to Forbes,
those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective
$401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total
of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those
five years, the IRS data shows. Thatâs a staggering
sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.
https://tinyurl.com/9rw8t2vz

AND I agree with you about it not making any difference to the left.
Mitchell will continue saying that the rich do not pay their share

(if

any) of taxes.

The rich DON'T pay their share of taxes.

Yet as a group, the top 1% pay a higher percentage of total income in
taxes than any other group.

Wrong. They have a higher tax rate, but that
says nothing about what they actually PAY.

Bull shit! Support your claim!

I didn't make the claim that the top 1%
actually pays taxes at posted rate, Hartung
did.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-d
ata -2020-update

Post by David Hartung
You are cherry picking a few people an
claiming that they are the norm.

Why are you making excuses for tax dodgers?

.
You are a perfect example why the Framers of our Constitution did
not want the general public to vote for any federal official other
than their one representative.

The president is not a federal official?

.
Read the Constitution.
The Framers never intended the dumb masses to vote for the president.

We are not bound by what the slave-owning "Framers" intended,
not-jane, you mackerel-reeking cunt. They got that wrong. The
slave-owning "Framers" gave us the framework to correct that egregious
error. We should do it.
There is *nothing* in the evolution (yes!) of our political and legal
history that says we should not move to adopt a popularly elected
president. There is *nothing* in the structure of our federal
government that says the president should *not* be popularly elected.
Popular election of the president has *no* implications for either
federalism or separation of powers. You *know* this, not-jane, you
mackerel-reeking cunt. You know it because I have instructed you in
it numerous times.

Exactly.

The EC was created as a sop to slave owners
as "jayne" has been repeatedly told. No other
country has one. It needs to go.

The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
November 10, 2016

At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary
Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct
national election of the president. But the
savvy Virginian James Madison responded that
such a system would prove unacceptable to the
South: "The right of suffrage was much more
diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern
than the Southern States; and the latter could
have no influence in the election on the score
of Negroes." In other words, in a direct
election system, the North would outnumber the
South, whose many slaves (more than half a
million in all) of course could not vote. But
the Electoral Collegea prototype of which
Madison proposed in this same speechinstead
let each southern state count its slaves,
albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing
its share of the overall count.

After the 1800 census, Wilsons free state of
Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than
Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes.
Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any
other slave state) bought or bred, the more
electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave
state to free any blacks who then moved North,
the state could actually lose electoral votes.

If the systems pro-slavery tilt was not
overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution
was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of
the Constitutions first 36 years, a white
slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.

http://tinyurl.com/o2vbjdn

Blue Lives Matter

2021-10-13 13:40:56 UTC

On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 08:19:06 -0500, Mitchell Holman

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 2:19:05 PM UTC-4, Mitchell
Holman

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs,
they get covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income
-t ax-

ata-2020-update/

You may have a typo, the site shows that the top 50% pay 97.1%,

other

than that this s good, but don't expect it to make any difference.
Our left wing friends will still complain that the high income

people

don't pay enough.
I do have a suggestion however. 60% of Americans no receive more

from

the Federal government in transfer income than they pay in taxes,

why

not simply drop the bottom 20%, or even 40% off the tax roles completely?
https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-receive-mor
e-

trans

fer-income-they-pay-taxes
Such a shift would be a way to actually help those people.

.
I have no idea were this discussion of 97.1% came from. I was
"Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not."
And my response was illustrating that the top 1% have a higher

average

tax rate than any other segment.

And you ignored my point about the
rich not paying taxes AT ALL.
Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records
Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid
Income Tax
June 8
In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and
now the worldâs richest man, did not pay a penny
in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again
in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-
richest person in the world, also paid no federal
income taxes.
Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent
years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice.
George Soros paid no federal income tax three years
in a row.
We compared how much in taxes the 25 richest
Americans paid each year to how much Forbes
estimated their wealth grew in that same time
period. The results are stark. According to Forbes,
those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective
$401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total
of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those
five years, the IRS data shows. Thatâs a staggering
sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.
https://tinyurl.com/9rw8t2vz

AND I agree with you about it not making any difference to the left.
Mitchell will continue saying that the rich do not pay their share

(if

any) of taxes.

The rich DON'T pay their share of taxes.

Yet as a group, the top 1% pay a higher percentage of total income in
taxes than any other group.

Wrong. They have a higher tax rate, but that
says nothing about what they actually PAY.

Bull shit! Support your claim!

I didn't make the claim that the top 1%
actually pays taxes at posted rate, Hartung
did.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-d
ata -2020-update

Post by David Hartung
You are cherry picking a few people an
claiming that they are the norm.

Why are you making excuses for tax dodgers?

.
You are a perfect example why the Framers of our Constitution did
not want the general public to vote for any federal official other
than their one representative.

The president is not a federal official?

.
Read the Constitution.
The Framers never intended the dumb masses to vote for the president.

We are not bound by what the slave-owning "Framers" intended,
not-jane, you mackerel-reeking cunt. They got that wrong. The
slave-owning "Framers" gave us the framework to correct that egregious
error. We should do it.
There is *nothing* in the evolution (yes!) of our political and legal
history that says we should not move to adopt a popularly elected
president. There is *nothing* in the structure of our federal
government that says the president should *not* be popularly elected.
Popular election of the president has *no* implications for either
federalism or separation of powers. You *know* this, not-jane, you
mackerel-reeking cunt. You know it because I have instructed you in
it numerous times.

Exactly.
The EC was created as a sop to slave owners
as "jayne" has been repeatedly told. No other
country has one. It needs to go.
The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
November 10, 2016
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary
Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct
national election of the president. But the
savvy Virginian James Madison responded that
such a system would prove unacceptable to the
South: "The right of suffrage was much more
diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern
than the Southern States; and the latter could
have no influence in the election on the score
of Negroes." In other words, in a direct
election system, the North would outnumber the
South, whose many slaves (more than half a
million in all) of course could not vote. But
the Electoral Collegea prototype of which
Madison proposed in this same speechinstead
let each southern state count its slaves,
albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing
its share of the overall count.
After the 1800 census, Wilsons free state of
Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than
Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes.
Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any
other slave state) bought or bred, the more
electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave
state to free any blacks who then moved North,
the state could actually lose electoral votes.
If the systems pro-slavery tilt was not
overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution
was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of
the Constitutions first 36 years, a white
slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.
http://tinyurl.com/o2vbjdn

Total nonsense. The infamous 3/5s proposal was for the number of House
of Representatives for each state, not the electoral college.

David Hartung

2021-10-13 21:42:17 UTC

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 08:19:06 -0500, Mitchell Holman

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 2:19:05 PM UTC-4, Mitchell
Holman

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs,
they get covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income
-t ax-

ata-2020-update/

You may have a typo, the site shows that the top 50% pay 97.1%,

other

than that this s good, but don't expect it to make any difference.
Our left wing friends will still complain that the high income

people

don't pay enough.
I do have a suggestion however. 60% of Americans no receive more

from

the Federal government in transfer income than they pay in taxes,

why

not simply drop the bottom 20%, or even 40% off the tax roles
completely?
https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-receive-mor
e-

trans

fer-income-they-pay-taxes
Such a shift would be a way to actually help those people.

.
I have no idea were this discussion of 97.1% came from. I was
"Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not."
And my response was illustrating that the top 1% have a higher

average

tax rate than any other segment.

And you ignored my point about the
rich not paying taxes AT ALL.
Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records
Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid
Income Tax
June 8
In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and
now the worldâ€™s richest man, did not pay a penny
in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again
in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-
richest person in the world, also paid no federal
income taxes.
Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent
years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice.
George Soros paid no federal income tax three years
in a row.
We compared how much in taxes the 25 richest
Americans paid each year to how much Forbes
estimated their wealth grew in that same time
period. The results are stark. According to Forbes,
those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective
$401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total
of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those
five years, the IRS data shows. Thatâ€™s a staggering
sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.
https://tinyurl.com/9rw8t2vz

AND I agree with you about it not making any difference to the left.
Mitchell will continue saying that the rich do not pay their share

(if

any) of taxes.

The rich DON'T pay their share of taxes.

Yet as a group, the top 1% pay a higher percentage of total income in
taxes than any other group.

Wrong. They have a higher tax rate, but that
says nothing about what they actually PAY.

Bull shit! Support your claim!

I didn't make the claim that the top 1%
actually pays taxes at posted rate, Hartung
did.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-d
ata -2020-update

Post by David Hartung
You are cherry picking a few people an
claiming that they are the norm.

Why are you making excuses for tax dodgers?

.
You are a perfect example why the Framers of our Constitution did
not want the general public to vote for any federal official other
than their one representative.

The president is not a federal official?

.
Read the Constitution.
The Framers never intended the dumb masses to vote for the president.

We are not bound by what the slave-owning "Framers" intended,
not-jane, you mackerel-reeking cunt. They got that wrong. The
slave-owning "Framers" gave us the framework to correct that egregious
error. We should do it.
There is *nothing* in the evolution (yes!) of our political and legal
history that says we should not move to adopt a popularly elected
president. There is *nothing* in the structure of our federal
government that says the president should *not* be popularly elected.
Popular election of the president has *no* implications for either
federalism or separation of powers. You *know* this, not-jane, you
mackerel-reeking cunt. You know it because I have instructed you in
it numerous times.

Exactly.
The EC was created as a sop to slave owners
as "jayne" has been repeatedly told. No other
country has one. It needs to go.
The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
November 10, 2016
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary
Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct
national election of the president. But the
savvy Virginian James Madison responded that
such a system would prove unacceptable to the
South: "The right of suffrage was much more
diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern
than the Southern States; and the latter could
have no influence in the election on the score
of Negroes." In other words, in a direct
election system, the North would outnumber the
South, whose many slaves (more than half a
million in all) of course could not vote. But
the Electoral College—a prototype of which
Madison proposed in this same speech—instead
let each southern state count its slaves,
albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing
its share of the overall count.
After the 1800 census, Wilson’s free state of
Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than
Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes.
Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any
other slave state) bought or bred, the more
electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave
state to free any blacks who then moved North,
the state could actually lose electoral votes.
If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not
overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution
was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of
the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white
slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.
http://tinyurl.com/o2vbjdn

Total nonsense. The infamous 3/5s proposal was for the number of House
of Representatives for each state, not the electoral college.

True, but the number of electors for each state is based upon the numebr
of representatives as well as the two senators.

Blue Lives Matter

2021-10-13 21:46:12 UTC

On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 16:42:17 -0500, David Hartung

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 08:19:06 -0500, Mitchell Holman

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 2:19:05 PM UTC-4, Mitchell
Holman

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs,
they get covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on
the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income
-t ax-

ata-2020-update/

You may have a typo, the site shows that the top 50% pay 97.1%,

other

than that this s good, but don't expect it to make any difference.
Our left wing friends will still complain that the high income

people

don't pay enough.
I do have a suggestion however. 60% of Americans no receive more

from

the Federal government in transfer income than they pay in taxes,

why

not simply drop the bottom 20%, or even 40% off the tax roles
completely?
https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-receive-mor
e-

trans

fer-income-they-pay-taxes
Such a shift would be a way to actually help those people.

.
I have no idea were this discussion of 97.1% came from. I was
"Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not."
And my response was illustrating that the top 1% have a higher

average

tax rate than any other segment.

And you ignored my point about the
rich not paying taxes AT ALL.
Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records
Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid
Income Tax
June 8
In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and
now the worldâs richest man, did not pay a penny
in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again
in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-
richest person in the world, also paid no federal
income taxes.
Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent
years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice.
George Soros paid no federal income tax three years
in a row.
We compared how much in taxes the 25 richest
Americans paid each year to how much Forbes
estimated their wealth grew in that same time
period. The results are stark. According to Forbes,
those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective
$401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total
of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those
five years, the IRS data shows. Thatâs a staggering
sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.
https://tinyurl.com/9rw8t2vz

AND I agree with you about it not making any difference to the left.
Mitchell will continue saying that the rich do not pay their share

(if

any) of taxes.

The rich DON'T pay their share of taxes.

Yet as a group, the top 1% pay a higher percentage of total income in
taxes than any other group.

Wrong. They have a higher tax rate, but that
says nothing about what they actually PAY.

Bull shit! Support your claim!

I didn't make the claim that the top 1%
actually pays taxes at posted rate, Hartung
did.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-d
ata -2020-update

Post by David Hartung
You are cherry picking a few people an
claiming that they are the norm.

Why are you making excuses for tax dodgers?

.
You are a perfect example why the Framers of our Constitution did
not want the general public to vote for any federal official other
than their one representative.

The president is not a federal official?

.
Read the Constitution.
The Framers never intended the dumb masses to vote for the president.

We are not bound by what the slave-owning "Framers" intended,
not-jane, you mackerel-reeking cunt. They got that wrong. The
slave-owning "Framers" gave us the framework to correct that egregious
error. We should do it.
There is *nothing* in the evolution (yes!) of our political and legal
history that says we should not move to adopt a popularly elected
president. There is *nothing* in the structure of our federal
government that says the president should *not* be popularly elected.
Popular election of the president has *no* implications for either
federalism or separation of powers. You *know* this, not-jane, you
mackerel-reeking cunt. You know it because I have instructed you in
it numerous times.

Exactly.
The EC was created as a sop to slave owners
as "jayne" has been repeatedly told. No other
country has one. It needs to go.
The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
November 10, 2016
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary
Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct
national election of the president. But the
savvy Virginian James Madison responded that
such a system would prove unacceptable to the
South: "The right of suffrage was much more
diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern
than the Southern States; and the latter could
have no influence in the election on the score
of Negroes." In other words, in a direct
election system, the North would outnumber the
South, whose many slaves (more than half a
million in all) of course could not vote. But
the Electoral Collegea prototype of which
Madison proposed in this same speechinstead
let each southern state count its slaves,
albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing
its share of the overall count.
After the 1800 census, Wilsons free state of
Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than
Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes.
Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any
other slave state) bought or bred, the more
electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave
state to free any blacks who then moved North,
the state could actually lose electoral votes.
If the systems pro-slavery tilt was not
overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution
was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of
the Constitutions first 36 years, a white
slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.
http://tinyurl.com/o2vbjdn

Total nonsense. The infamous 3/5s proposal was for the number of House
of Representatives for each state, not the electoral college.

True, but the number of electors for each state is based upon the numebr
of representatives as well as the two senators.

Indeed, but the EC itself had nothing to do with slavery.

David Hartung

2021-10-14 00:04:15 UTC

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 16:42:17 -0500, David Hartung

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 08:19:06 -0500, Mitchell Holman

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 2:19:05 PM UTC-4, Mitchell
Holman

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs,
they get covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on
the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income
-t ax-

ata-2020-update/

You may have a typo, the site shows that the top 50% pay 97.1%,

other

than that this s good, but don't expect it to make any difference.
Our left wing friends will still complain that the high income

people

don't pay enough.
I do have a suggestion however. 60% of Americans no receive more

from

the Federal government in transfer income than they pay in taxes,

why

not simply drop the bottom 20%, or even 40% off the tax roles
completely?
https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-receive-mor
e-

trans

fer-income-they-pay-taxes
Such a shift would be a way to actually help those people.

.
I have no idea were this discussion of 97.1% came from. I was
"Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not."
And my response was illustrating that the top 1% have a higher

average

tax rate than any other segment.

And you ignored my point about the
rich not paying taxes AT ALL.
Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records
Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid
Income Tax
June 8
In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and
now the worldâ€™s richest man, did not pay a penny
in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again
in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-
richest person in the world, also paid no federal
income taxes.
Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent
years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice.
George Soros paid no federal income tax three years
in a row.
We compared how much in taxes the 25 richest
Americans paid each year to how much Forbes
estimated their wealth grew in that same time
period. The results are stark. According to Forbes,
those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective
$401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total
of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those
five years, the IRS data shows. Thatâ€™s a staggering
sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.
https://tinyurl.com/9rw8t2vz

AND I agree with you about it not making any difference to the left.
Mitchell will continue saying that the rich do not pay their share

(if

any) of taxes.

The rich DON'T pay their share of taxes.

Yet as a group, the top 1% pay a higher percentage of total income in
taxes than any other group.

Wrong. They have a higher tax rate, but that
says nothing about what they actually PAY.

Bull shit! Support your claim!

I didn't make the claim that the top 1%
actually pays taxes at posted rate, Hartung
did.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-d
ata -2020-update

Post by David Hartung
You are cherry picking a few people an
claiming that they are the norm.

Why are you making excuses for tax dodgers?

.
You are a perfect example why the Framers of our Constitution did
not want the general public to vote for any federal official other
than their one representative.

The president is not a federal official?

.
Read the Constitution.
The Framers never intended the dumb masses to vote for the president.

We are not bound by what the slave-owning "Framers" intended,
not-jane, you mackerel-reeking cunt. They got that wrong. The
slave-owning "Framers" gave us the framework to correct that egregious
error. We should do it.
There is *nothing* in the evolution (yes!) of our political and legal
history that says we should not move to adopt a popularly elected
president. There is *nothing* in the structure of our federal
government that says the president should *not* be popularly elected.
Popular election of the president has *no* implications for either
federalism or separation of powers. You *know* this, not-jane, you
mackerel-reeking cunt. You know it because I have instructed you in
it numerous times.

Exactly.
The EC was created as a sop to slave owners
as "jayne" has been repeatedly told. No other
country has one. It needs to go.
The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
November 10, 2016
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary
Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct
national election of the president. But the
savvy Virginian James Madison responded that
such a system would prove unacceptable to the
South: "The right of suffrage was much more
diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern
than the Southern States; and the latter could
have no influence in the election on the score
of Negroes." In other words, in a direct
election system, the North would outnumber the
South, whose many slaves (more than half a
million in all) of course could not vote. But
the Electoral College—a prototype of which
Madison proposed in this same speech—instead
let each southern state count its slaves,
albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing
its share of the overall count.
After the 1800 census, Wilson’s free state of
Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than
Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes.
Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any
other slave state) bought or bred, the more
electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave
state to free any blacks who then moved North,
the state could actually lose electoral votes.
If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not
overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution
was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of
the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white
slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.
http://tinyurl.com/o2vbjdn

Total nonsense. The infamous 3/5s proposal was for the number of House
of Representatives for each state, not the electoral college.

True, but the number of electors for each state is based upon the numebr
of representatives as well as the two senators.

Indeed, but the EC itself had nothing to do with slavery.

Of course it doesn't.

Mitchell Holman

2021-10-14 02:11:19 UTC

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 16:42:17 -0500, David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman
The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
November 10, 2016
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary
Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct
national election of the president. But the
savvy Virginian James Madison responded that
such a system would prove unacceptable to the
South: "The right of suffrage was much more
diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern
than the Southern States; and the latter could
have no influence in the election on the score
of Negroes." In other words, in a direct
election system, the North would outnumber the
South, whose many slaves (more than half a
million in all) of course could not vote. But
the Electoral Collegeâa prototype of which
Madison proposed in this same speechâinstead
let each southern state count its slaves,
albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing
its share of the overall count.
After the 1800 census, Wilsonâs free state of
Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than
Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes.
Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any
other slave state) bought or bred, the more
electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave
state to free any blacks who then moved North,
the state could actually lose electoral votes.
If the systemâs pro-slavery tilt was not
overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution
was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of
the Constitutionâs first 36 years, a white
slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.
http://tinyurl.com/o2vbjdn

Total nonsense. The infamous 3/5s proposal was for the number of
House of Representatives for each state, not the electoral college.

True, but the number of electors for each state is based upon the
numebr of representatives as well as the two senators.

Indeed, but the EC itself had nothing to do with slavery.

Of course it doesn't.

The posted proof above proves you wrong.

But just in case, here is some more.

Yes, The Electoral College Really Is A Vestige Of Slavery.
December 6, 2016

The Constitutional convention had already
decided to allow each slave state to count an
African-American slave as three-fifths of a
person for the purpose of awarding seats in the
House of Representatives. By apportioning the
Electoral College so that every state got one
electoral vote for each House district, plus
two extra for each of its senators, the slave
states were able to use their captive black
populations to bolster their influence in
presidential elections.

The proximate source of this wrangling was
Virginia, the largest stateand thus the most
likely to produce presidents, as long as its
enslaved population was taken into consideration.
According to the official record of the convention,
one delegate, Hugh Williamson of North Carolina,
observed that slavery would put Virginia at a
disadvantage if the president were chosen by
popular vote:

The people will be sure to vote for some man in
their own State, and the largest state will be
sure to succede. This will not be Virga. however.
Her slaves will have no suffrage.

And James Madison, a slaveholder from Virginia,
told his fellow delegates that the direct election
of the president would be unfair to the South
because the "right of suffrage was much more
diffusive in the Northern than the Southern states;
and the latter could have no influence in the
election on the score of the Negroes."

Thus was born the Electoral College.....

http://tinyurl.com/y73sm67q

Blue Lives Matter

2021-10-14 08:51:40 UTC

On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 21:11:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 16:42:17 -0500, David Hartung

Total nonsense. The infamous 3/5s proposal was for the number of
House of Representatives for each state, not the electoral college.

True, but the number of electors for each state is based upon the
numebr of representatives as well as the two senators.

Indeed, but the EC itself had nothing to do with slavery.

Of course it doesn't.

The posted proof above proves you wrong.
But just in case, here is some more.
Yes, The Electoral College Really Is A Vestige Of Slavery.
December 6, 2016
The Constitutional convention had already
decided to allow each slave state to count an
African-American slave as three-fifths of a
person for the purpose of awarding seats in the
House of Representatives. By apportioning the
Electoral College so that every state got one
electoral vote for each House district, plus
two extra for each of its senators, the slave
states were able to use their captive black
populations to bolster their influence in
presidential elections.
The proximate source of this wrangling was
Virginia, the largest stateand thus the most
likely to produce presidents, as long as its
enslaved population was taken into consideration.
According to the official record of the convention,
one delegate, Hugh Williamson of North Carolina,
observed that slavery would put Virginia at a
disadvantage if the president were chosen by
The people will be sure to vote for some man in
their own State, and the largest state will be
sure to succede. This will not be Virga. however.
Her slaves will have no suffrage.
And James Madison, a slaveholder from Virginia,
told his fellow delegates that the direct election
of the president would be unfair to the South
because the "right of suffrage was much more
diffusive in the Northern than the Southern states;
and the latter could have no influence in the
election on the score of the Negroes."
Thus was born the Electoral College.....
http://tinyurl.com/y73sm67q

<LOL> Hollowhead's cite says "The Constitutional convention had
already decided to allow each slave state to count an
African-American slave as three-fifths of a
person for the purpose of awarding seats in the
House of Representatives. "

Fact is Hugh Williamson's speech was the only mention of slavery prior
to the defeat of the direct presidential election rejection. Madison's
speech was AFTER it had already been twice firmly voted down by both
northern and southern delegates. Direct election was never a popular
proposal.

After the twice rejected direct election vote, the two proposals left
on the convention's table were the electoral college and election by
Congress, which was supported by the South, over the EC.

Here's a fine account of what actually happened at that convention.

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/171722

David Hartung

2021-10-14 09:26:36 UTC

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 16:42:17 -0500, David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman
The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
November 10, 2016
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary
Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct
national election of the president. But the
savvy Virginian James Madison responded that
such a system would prove unacceptable to the
South: "The right of suffrage was much more
diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern
than the Southern States; and the latter could
have no influence in the election on the score
of Negroes." In other words, in a direct
election system, the North would outnumber the
South, whose many slaves (more than half a
million in all) of course could not vote. But
the Electoral Collegeā€”a prototype of which
Madison proposed in this same speechā€”instead
let each southern state count its slaves,
albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing
its share of the overall count.
After the 1800 census, Wilsonā€™s free state of
Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than
Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes.
Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any
other slave state) bought or bred, the more
electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave
state to free any blacks who then moved North,
the state could actually lose electoral votes.
If the systemā€™s pro-slavery tilt was not
overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution
was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of
the Constitutionā€™s first 36 years, a white
slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.
http://tinyurl.com/o2vbjdn

Total nonsense. The infamous 3/5s proposal was for the number of
House of Representatives for each state, not the electoral college.

True, but the number of electors for each state is based upon the
numebr of representatives as well as the two senators.

Indeed, but the EC itself had nothing to do with slavery.

Of course it doesn't.

The posted proof above proves you wrong.
But just in case, here is some more.
Yes, The Electoral College Really Is A Vestige Of Slavery.
December 6, 2016
The Constitutional convention had already
decided to allow each slave state to count an
African-American slave as three-fifths of a
person for the purpose of awarding seats in the
House of Representatives. By apportioning the
Electoral College so that every state got one
electoral vote for each House district, plus
two extra for each of its senators, the slave
states were able to use their captive black
populations to bolster their influence in
presidential elections.
The proximate source of this wrangling was
Virginia, the largest state—and thus the most
likely to produce presidents, as long as its
enslaved population was taken into consideration.
According to the official record of the convention,
one delegate, Hugh Williamson of North Carolina,
observed that slavery would put Virginia at a
disadvantage if the president were chosen by
The people will be sure to vote for some man in
their own State, and the largest state will be
sure to succede. This will not be Virga. however.
Her slaves will have no suffrage.
And James Madison, a slaveholder from Virginia,
told his fellow delegates that the direct election
of the president would be unfair to the South
because the "right of suffrage was much more
diffusive in the Northern than the Southern states;
and the latter could have no influence in the
election on the score of the Negroes."
Thus was born the Electoral College.....
http://tinyurl.com/y73sm67q

You do realize that the above article is an opinion piece?

Mitchell Holman

2021-10-14 13:08:59 UTC

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 16:42:17 -0500, David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman
The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
November 10, 2016
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary
Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct
national election of the president. But the
savvy Virginian James Madison responded that
such a system would prove unacceptable to the
South: "The right of suffrage was much more
diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern
than the Southern States; and the latter could
have no influence in the election on the score
of Negroes." In other words, in a direct
election system, the North would outnumber the
South, whose many slaves (more than half a
million in all) of course could not vote. But
the Electoral CollegeÄâ¬âa prototype of which
Madison proposed in this same speechÄâ¬âinstead
let each southern state count its slaves,
albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing
its share of the overall count.
After the 1800 census, WilsonÄâ¬â¢s free state of
Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than
Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes.
Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any
other slave state) bought or bred, the more
electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave
state to free any blacks who then moved North,
the state could actually lose electoral votes.
If the systemÄâ¬â¢s pro-slavery tilt was not
overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution
was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of
the ConstitutionÄâ¬â¢s first 36 years, a white
slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.
http://tinyurl.com/o2vbjdn

Total nonsense. The infamous 3/5s proposal was for the number of
House of Representatives for each state, not the electoral college.

True, but the number of electors for each state is based upon the
numebr of representatives as well as the two senators.

Indeed, but the EC itself had nothing to do with slavery.

Of course it doesn't.

The posted proof above proves you wrong.
But just in case, here is some more.
Yes, The Electoral College Really Is A Vestige Of Slavery.
December 6, 2016
The Constitutional convention had already
decided to allow each slave state to count an
African-American slave as three-fifths of a
person for the purpose of awarding seats in the
House of Representatives. By apportioning the
Electoral College so that every state got one
electoral vote for each House district, plus
two extra for each of its senators, the slave
states were able to use their captive black
populations to bolster their influence in
presidential elections.
The proximate source of this wrangling was
Virginia, the largest stateâand thus the most
likely to produce presidents, as long as its
enslaved population was taken into consideration.
According to the official record of the convention,
one delegate, Hugh Williamson of North Carolina,
observed that slavery would put Virginia at a
disadvantage if the president were chosen by
The people will be sure to vote for some man in
their own State, and the largest state will be
sure to succede. This will not be Virga. however.
Her slaves will have no suffrage.
And James Madison, a slaveholder from Virginia,
told his fellow delegates that the direct election
of the president would be unfair to the South
because the "right of suffrage was much more
diffusive in the Northern than the Southern states;
and the latter could have no influence in the
election on the score of the Negroes."
Thus was born the Electoral College.....
http://tinyurl.com/y73sm67q

You do realize that the above article is an opinion piece?

"Do me a favor, read the article and tell me if what
it describes is in any way factually incorrect"
David Hartung, Apr 24 2015

Rudy Canoza

2021-10-14 02:24:15 UTC

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 16:42:17 -0500, David Hartung

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 08:19:06 -0500, Mitchell Holman

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 8:07:34 AM UTC-4, David Hartung

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 2:19:05 PM UTC-4, Mitchell
Holman

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs,
they get covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on
the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income
-t ax-

ata-2020-update/

You may have a typo, the site shows that the top 50% pay 97.1%,

other

than that this s good, but don't expect it to make any
difference.
Our left wing friends will still complain that the high income

people

don't pay enough.
I do have a suggestion however. 60% of Americans no receive more

from

the Federal government in transfer income than they pay in taxes,

why

not simply drop the bottom 20%, or even 40% off the tax roles
completely?
https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-receive-mor
e-

trans

fer-income-they-pay-taxes
Such a shift would be a way to actually help those people.

.
I have no idea were this discussion of 97.1% came from. I was
"Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not."
And my response was illustrating that the top 1% have a higher

average

tax rate than any other segment.

And you ignored my point about the
rich not paying taxes AT ALL.
Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records
Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid
Income Tax
June 8
In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and
now the worldâ€™s richest man, did not pay a penny
in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again
in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-
richest person in the world, also paid no federal
income taxes.
Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent
years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice.
George Soros paid no federal income tax three years
in a row.
We compared how much in taxes the 25 richest
Americans paid each year to how much Forbes
estimated their wealth grew in that same time
period. The results are stark. According to Forbes,
those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective
$401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total
of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those
five years, the IRS data shows. Thatâ€™s a staggering
sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.
https://tinyurl.com/9rw8t2vz

AND I agree with you about it not making any difference to the
left.
Mitchell will continue saying that the rich do not pay their share

(if

any) of taxes.

The rich DON'T pay their share of taxes.

Yet as a group, the top 1% pay a higher percentage of total income in
taxes than any other group.

Wrong. They have a higher tax rate, but that
says nothing about what they actually PAY.

Bull shit! Support your claim!

I didn't make the claim that the top 1%
actually pays taxes at posted rate, Hartung
did.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-d
ata -2020-update

Post by David Hartung
You are cherry picking a few people an
claiming that they are the norm.

Why are you making excuses for tax dodgers?

.
You are a perfect example why the Framers of our Constitution did
not want the general public to vote for any federal official other
than their one representative.

The president is not a federal official?

.
Read the Constitution.
The Framers never intended the dumb masses to vote for the president.

We are not bound by what the slave-owning "Framers" intended,
not-jane, you mackerel-reeking cunt. They got that wrong. The
slave-owning "Framers" gave us the framework to correct that egregious
error. We should do it.
There is *nothing* in the evolution (yes!) of our political and legal
history that says we should not move to adopt a popularly elected
president. There is *nothing* in the structure of our federal
government that says the president should *not* be popularly elected.
Popular election of the president has *no* implications for either
federalism or separation of powers. You *know* this, not-jane, you
mackerel-reeking cunt. You know it because I have instructed you in
it numerous times.

Exactly.
The EC was created as a sop to slave owners
as "jayne" has been repeatedly told. No other
country has one. It needs to go.
The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
November 10, 2016
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary
Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct
national election of the president. But the
savvy Virginian James Madison responded that
such a system would prove unacceptable to the
South: "The right of suffrage was much more
diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern
than the Southern States; and the latter could
have no influence in the election on the score
of Negroes." In other words, in a direct
election system, the North would outnumber the
South, whose many slaves (more than half a
million in all) of course could not vote. But
the Electoral College—a prototype of which
Madison proposed in this same speech—instead
let each southern state count its slaves,
albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing
its share of the overall count.
After the 1800 census, Wilson’s free state of
Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than
Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes.
Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any
other slave state) bought or bred, the more
electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave
state to free any blacks who then moved North,
the state could actually lose electoral votes.
If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not
overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution
was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of
the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white
slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.
http://tinyurl.com/o2vbjdn

Total nonsense. The infamous 3/5s proposal was for the number of House
of Representatives for each state, not the electoral college.

True, but the number of electors for each state is based upon the numebr
of representatives as well as the two senators.

Indeed, but the EC itself had nothing to do with slavery.

Of course it doesn't.

Wrong. It was a direct result of slavery. If we had not had the indelible
stain of slavery, we would not have the electoral college. This is settled.

Rudy Canoza

2021-10-13 22:29:29 UTC

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 08:19:06 -0500, Mitchell Holman

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 2:19:05 PM UTC-4, Mitchell
Holman

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs,
they get covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on
the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income
-t ax-

ata-2020-update/

You may have a typo, the site shows that the top 50% pay 97.1%,

other

than that this s good, but don't expect it to make any difference.
Our left wing friends will still complain that the high income

people

don't pay enough.
I do have a suggestion however. 60% of Americans no receive more

from

the Federal government in transfer income than they pay in taxes,

why

not simply drop the bottom 20%, or even 40% off the tax roles
completely?
https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-receive-mor
e-

trans

fer-income-they-pay-taxes
Such a shift would be a way to actually help those people.

.
I have no idea were this discussion of 97.1% came from. I was
"Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not."
And my response was illustrating that the top 1% have a higher

average

tax rate than any other segment.

And you ignored my point about the
rich not paying taxes AT ALL.
Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records
Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid
Income Tax
June 8
In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and
now the worldâ€™s richest man, did not pay a penny
in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again
in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-
richest person in the world, also paid no federal
income taxes.
Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent
years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice.
George Soros paid no federal income tax three years
in a row.
We compared how much in taxes the 25 richest
Americans paid each year to how much Forbes
estimated their wealth grew in that same time
period. The results are stark. According to Forbes,
those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective
$401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total
of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those
five years, the IRS data shows. Thatâ€™s a staggering
sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.
https://tinyurl.com/9rw8t2vz

AND I agree with you about it not making any difference to the left.
Mitchell will continue saying that the rich do not pay their share

(if

any) of taxes.

The rich DON'T pay their share of taxes.

Yet as a group, the top 1% pay a higher percentage of total income in
taxes than any other group.

Wrong. They have a higher tax rate, but that
says nothing about what they actually PAY.

Bull shit! Support your claim!

I didn't make the claim that the top 1%
actually pays taxes at posted rate, Hartung
did.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-d
ata -2020-update

Post by David Hartung
You are cherry picking a few people an
claiming that they are the norm.

Why are you making excuses for tax dodgers?

.
You are a perfect example why the Framers of our Constitution did
not want the general public to vote for any federal official other
than their one representative.

The president is not a federal official?

.
Read the Constitution.
The Framers never intended the dumb masses to vote for the president.

We are not bound by what the slave-owning "Framers" intended,
not-jane, you mackerel-reeking cunt. They got that wrong. The
slave-owning "Framers" gave us the framework to correct that egregious
error. We should do it.
There is *nothing* in the evolution (yes!) of our political and legal
history that says we should not move to adopt a popularly elected
president. There is *nothing* in the structure of our federal
government that says the president should *not* be popularly elected.
Popular election of the president has *no* implications for either
federalism or separation of powers. You *know* this, not-jane, you
mackerel-reeking cunt. You know it because I have instructed you in
it numerous times.

Exactly.
The EC was created as a sop to slave owners
as "jayne" has been repeatedly told. No other
country has one. It needs to go.
The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
November 10, 2016
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary
Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct
national election of the president. But the
savvy Virginian James Madison responded that
such a system would prove unacceptable to the
South: "The right of suffrage was much more
diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern
than the Southern States; and the latter could
have no influence in the election on the score
of Negroes." In other words, in a direct
election system, the North would outnumber the
South, whose many slaves (more than half a
million in all) of course could not vote. But
the Electoral College—a prototype of which
Madison proposed in this same speech—instead
let each southern state count its slaves,
albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing
its share of the overall count.
After the 1800 census, Wilson’s free state of
Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than
Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes.
Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any
other slave state) bought or bred, the more
electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave
state to free any blacks who then moved North,
the state could actually lose electoral votes.
If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not
overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution
was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of
the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white
slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.
http://tinyurl.com/o2vbjdn

Total nonsense. The infamous 3/5s proposal was for the number of House
of Representatives for each state, not the electoral college.

True, but the number of electors for each state is based upon the numebr of
representatives as well as the two senators.

Both of them are based on slavery.

Rudy Canoza

2021-10-13 14:34:33 UTC

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 2:19:05 PM UTC-4, Mitchell
Holman

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs,
they get covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income
-t ax-

ata-2020-update/

You may have a typo, the site shows that the top 50% pay 97.1%,

other

than that this s good, but don't expect it to make any difference.
Our left wing friends will still complain that the high income

people

don't pay enough.
I do have a suggestion however. 60% of Americans no receive more

from

the Federal government in transfer income than they pay in taxes,

why

not simply drop the bottom 20%, or even 40% off the tax roles completely?
https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-receive-mor
e-

trans

fer-income-they-pay-taxes
Such a shift would be a way to actually help those people.

.
I have no idea were this discussion of 97.1% came from. I was
"Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not."
And my response was illustrating that the top 1% have a higher

average

tax rate than any other segment.

And you ignored my point about the
rich not paying taxes AT ALL.
Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records
Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid
Income Tax
June 8
In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and
now the worldā€™s richest man, did not pay a penny
in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again
in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-
richest person in the world, also paid no federal
income taxes.
Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent
years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice.
George Soros paid no federal income tax three years
in a row.
We compared how much in taxes the 25 richest
Americans paid each year to how much Forbes
estimated their wealth grew in that same time
period. The results are stark. According to Forbes,
those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective
$401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total
of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those
five years, the IRS data shows. Thatā€™s a staggering
sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.
https://tinyurl.com/9rw8t2vz

AND I agree with you about it not making any difference to the left.
Mitchell will continue saying that the rich do not pay their share

(if

any) of taxes.

The rich DON'T pay their share of taxes.

Yet as a group, the top 1% pay a higher percentage of total income in
taxes than any other group.

Wrong. They have a higher tax rate, but that
says nothing about what they actually PAY.

Bull shit! Support your claim!

I didn't make the claim that the top 1%
actually pays taxes at posted rate, Hartung
did.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-d
ata -2020-update

Post by David Hartung
You are cherry picking a few people an
claiming that they are the norm.

Why are you making excuses for tax dodgers?

.
You are a perfect example why the Framers of our Constitution did
not want the general public to vote for any federal official other
than their one representative.

The president is not a federal official?

.
Read the Constitution.
The Framers never intended the dumb masses to vote for the president.

We are not bound by what the slave-owning "Framers" intended,
not-jane, you mackerel-reeking cunt. They got that wrong. The
slave-owning "Framers" gave us the framework to correct that egregious
error. We should do it.
There is *nothing* in the evolution (yes!) of our political and legal
history that says we should not move to adopt a popularly elected
president. There is *nothing* in the structure of our federal
government that says the president should *not* be popularly elected.
Popular election of the president has *no* implications for either
federalism or separation of powers. You *know* this, not-jane, you
mackerel-reeking cunt. You know it because I have instructed you in
it numerous times.

Exactly.
The EC was created as a sop to slave owners
as "jayne" has been repeatedly told. No other
country has one. It needs to go.

I wouldn't even call it a sop. A sop is something symbolic, essentially
meaningless, given to someone to mollify him because his concerns weren't being
addressed. It has no real effect. The electoral college *absolutely* has hard
meaning. It was added expressly so that slavers would control the presidency.
Eight of the first 11 presidents were from slave states (seven from Virginia,
one from South Carolina).

As I have instructed the right-wingnuts many times, the electoral college is in
*no* way fundamental to separation of powers (among branches of the federal
government) or federalism (division of government between federal and states).
There is no justification for it, apart from an unwarranted reverence and
adoration for the saintly "Founding Fathers."

Post by Mitchell Holman
The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
November 10, 2016
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary
Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct
national election of the president. But the
savvy Virginian James Madison responded that
such a system would prove unacceptable to the
South: "The right of suffrage was much more
diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern
than the Southern States; and the latter could
have no influence in the election on the score
of Negroes." In other words, in a direct
election system, the North would outnumber the
South, whose many slaves (more than half a
million in all) of course could not vote. But
the Electoral College—a prototype of which
Madison proposed in this same speech—instead
let each southern state count its slaves,
albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing
its share of the overall count.
After the 1800 census, Wilson’s free state of
Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than
Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes.
Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any
other slave state) bought or bred, the more
electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave
state to free any blacks who then moved North,
the state could actually lose electoral votes.
If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not
overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution
was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of
the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white
slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.
http://tinyurl.com/o2vbjdn

David Hartung

2021-10-13 21:46:03 UTC

A claim you have made many times and have been utterly unable to support.

As I have instructed the right-wingnuts many times, the electoral
college is in *no* way fundamental to separation of powers (among
branches of the federal government) or federalism (division of
government between federal and states). There is no justification for
it, apart from an unwarranted reverence and adoration for the saintly
"Founding Fathers."

And as I and others have observed many times, you have no idea of what
you speak. You make this claim because it fits your ideology, and only
because it fits your ideology.

Blue Lives Matter

2021-10-13 21:48:58 UTC

On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 16:46:03 -0500, David Hartung

A claim you have made many times and have been utterly unable to support.

And as I and others have observed many times, you have no idea of what
you speak. You make this claim because it fits your ideology, and only
because it fits your ideology.

At any rate, the EC is going away anytime soon.

Rudy Canoza

2021-10-13 22:31:46 UTC

A claim you have made many times

And have supported every time.

As I have instructed the right-wingnuts many times, the electoral college is
in *no* way fundamental to separation of powers (among branches of the federal
government) or federalism (division of government between federal and states).
There is no justification for it, apart from an unwarranted reverence and
adoration for the saintly "Founding Fathers."

And as I and others have observed many times, you have no idea of what you
speak.

I know full well of what I speak. *You* can't find anything to support your
belief that the electoral college is in any way connected either to federalism
or separation of powers. And you know why? Because it isn't. If the president
were popularly elected, it would not change the division of governmental
responsibilities between the federal government and the states in any way, and
it would not change the separation of powers among the three branches of the
federal government in any way.

jane playne

2021-10-13 16:13:02 UTC

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 2:19:05 PM UTC-4, Mitchell
Holman

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs,
they get covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income
-t ax-

ata-2020-update/

You may have a typo, the site shows that the top 50% pay 97.1%,

other

than that this s good, but don't expect it to make any difference.
Our left wing friends will still complain that the high income

people

don't pay enough.
I do have a suggestion however. 60% of Americans no receive more

from

the Federal government in transfer income than they pay in taxes,

why

not simply drop the bottom 20%, or even 40% off the tax roles
completely?
https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-receive-mor
e-

trans

fer-income-they-pay-taxes
Such a shift would be a way to actually help those people.

.
I have no idea were this discussion of 97.1% came from. I was
"Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not."
And my response was illustrating that the top 1% have a higher

average

tax rate than any other segment.

And you ignored my point about the
rich not paying taxes AT ALL.
Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records
Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid
Income Tax
June 8
In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and
now the worldâ€™s richest man, did not pay a penny
in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again
in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-
richest person in the world, also paid no federal
income taxes.
Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent
years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice.
George Soros paid no federal income tax three years
in a row.
We compared how much in taxes the 25 richest
Americans paid each year to how much Forbes
estimated their wealth grew in that same time
period. The results are stark. According to Forbes,
those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective
$401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total
of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those
five years, the IRS data shows. Thatâ€™s a staggering
sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.
https://tinyurl.com/9rw8t2vz

AND I agree with you about it not making any difference to the left.
Mitchell will continue saying that the rich do not pay their share

(if

any) of taxes.

The rich DON'T pay their share of taxes.

Yet as a group, the top 1% pay a higher percentage of total income in
taxes than any other group.

Wrong. They have a higher tax rate, but that
says nothing about what they actually PAY.

Bull shit! Support your claim!

I didn't make the claim that the top 1%
actually pays taxes at posted rate, Hartung
did.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-d
ata -2020-update

Post by David Hartung
You are cherry picking a few people an
claiming that they are the norm.

Why are you making excuses for tax dodgers?

.
You are a perfect example why the Framers of our Constitution did
not want the general public to vote for any federal official other
than their one representative.

The president is not a federal official?

.
Read the Constitution.
The Framers never intended the dumb masses to vote for the president.

We are not bound by what the slave-owning "Framers" intended,
not-jane, you mackerel-reeking cunt. They got that wrong. The
slave-owning "Framers" gave us the framework to correct that egregious
error. We should do it.
There is *nothing* in the evolution (yes!) of our political and legal
history that says we should not move to adopt a popularly elected
president. There is *nothing* in the structure of our federal
government that says the president should *not* be popularly elected.
Popular election of the president has *no* implications for either
federalism or separation of powers. You *know* this, not-jane, you
mackerel-reeking cunt. You know it because I have instructed you in
it numerous times.

Exactly.
The EC was created as a sop to slave owners
as "jayne" has been repeatedly told. No other
country has one. It needs to go.
The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
November 10, 2016
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary
Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct
national election of the president. But the
savvy Virginian James Madison responded that
such a system would prove unacceptable to the
South: "The right of suffrage was much more
diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern
than the Southern States; and the latter could
have no influence in the election on the score
of Negroes." In other words, in a direct
election system, the North would outnumber the
South, whose many slaves (more than half a
million in all) of course could not vote. But
the Electoral College—a prototype of which
Madison proposed in this same speech—instead
let each southern state count its slaves,
albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing
its share of the overall count.
After the 1800 census, Wilson’s free state of
Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than
Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes.
Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any
other slave state) bought or bred, the more
electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave
state to free any blacks who then moved North,
the state could actually lose electoral votes.
If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not
overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution
was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of
the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white
slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.
http://tinyurl.com/o2vbjdn

.

That dead horse has been beaten many times before.

You could not dispute that Bezos did nothing wrong and he did not "get away" with anything.

Ubiquitous

2021-10-13 16:26:07 UTC

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 2:19:05 PM UTC-4, Mitchell
Holman

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs,
they get covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income
-t ax-

ata-2020-update/

You may have a typo, the site shows that the top 50% pay 97.1%,

other

than that this s good, but don't expect it to make any difference.
Our left wing friends will still complain that the high income

people

don't pay enough.
I do have a suggestion however. 60% of Americans no receive more

from

the Federal government in transfer income than they pay in taxes,

why

not simply drop the bottom 20%, or even 40% off the tax roles
completely?
https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-receive-mor
e-

trans

fer-income-they-pay-taxes
Such a shift would be a way to actually help those people.

.
I have no idea were this discussion of 97.1% came from. I was
"Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not."
And my response was illustrating that the top 1% have a higher

average

tax rate than any other segment.

And you ignored my point about the
rich not paying taxes AT ALL.
Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records
Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid
Income Tax
June 8
In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and
now the worldâ€™s richest man, did not pay a penny
in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again
in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-
richest person in the world, also paid no federal
income taxes.
Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent
years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice.
George Soros paid no federal income tax three years
in a row.
We compared how much in taxes the 25 richest
Americans paid each year to how much Forbes
estimated their wealth grew in that same time
period. The results are stark. According to Forbes,
those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective
$401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total
of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those
five years, the IRS data shows. Thatâ€™s a staggering
sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.
https://tinyurl.com/9rw8t2vz

AND I agree with you about it not making any difference to the left.
Mitchell will continue saying that the rich do not pay their share

(if

any) of taxes.

The rich DON'T pay their share of taxes.

Yet as a group, the top 1% pay a higher percentage of total income in
taxes than any other group.

Wrong. They have a higher tax rate, but that
says nothing about what they actually PAY.

Bull shit! Support your claim!

I didn't make the claim that the top 1%
actually pays taxes at posted rate, Hartung
did.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-d
ata -2020-update

Post by David Hartung
You are cherry picking a few people an
claiming that they are the norm.

Why are you making excuses for tax dodgers?

.
You are a perfect example why the Framers of our Constitution did
not want the general public to vote for any federal official other
than their one representative.

The president is not a federal official?

.
Read the Constitution.
The Framers never intended the dumb masses to vote for the president.

We are not bound by what the slave-owning "Framers" intended,
not-jane, you mackerel-reeking cunt. They got that wrong. The
slave-owning "Framers" gave us the framework to correct that egregious
error. We should do it.
There is *nothing* in the evolution (yes!) of our political and legal
history that says we should not move to adopt a popularly elected
president. There is *nothing* in the structure of our federal
government that says the president should *not* be popularly elected.
Popular election of the president has *no* implications for either
federalism or separation of powers. You *know* this, not-jane, you
mackerel-reeking cunt. You know it because I have instructed you in
it numerous times.

Exactly.
The EC was created as a sop to slave owners
as "jayne" has been repeatedly told. No other
country has one. It needs to go.
The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
November 10, 2016
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary
Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct
national election of the president. But the
savvy Virginian James Madison responded that
such a system would prove unacceptable to the
South: "The right of suffrage was much more
diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern
than the Southern States; and the latter could
have no influence in the election on the score
of Negroes." In other words, in a direct
election system, the North would outnumber the
South, whose many slaves (more than half a
million in all) of course could not vote. But
the Electoral College—a prototype of which
Madison proposed in this same speech—instead
let each southern state count its slaves,
albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing
its share of the overall count.
After the 1800 census, Wilson’s free state of
Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than
Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes.
Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any
other slave state) bought or bred, the more
electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave
state to free any blacks who then moved North,
the state could actually lose electoral votes.
If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not
overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution
was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of
the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white
slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.
http://tinyurl.com/o2vbjdn

.
That dead horse has been beaten many times before.

That horse is alive and well and dragging you by your heels around the track of
reality, lap after lap. The electoral college's *only* reason for inclusion in
the Constitution was to support slavery. The debates at the federal convention
prove this.

Post by jane playne
You could not dispute that Bezos did nothing wrong and he did not "get away" with anything.

Yes, he did. The fact that people like Bezos, with hundreds of billions in
assets and hundreds of millions in income, pay less in taxes than a grocery
store clerk, is a crime. It's simply wrong. Bezos may not benefit in
increasing increments from living in a civilized society as his assets and
income increase, but he *does* benefit from the system we have in place, and
some amount of government is essential to maintain that system.

jane playne

2021-10-13 16:36:44 UTC

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 2:19:05 PM UTC-4, Mitchell
Holman

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs,
they get covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on
the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income
-t ax-

ata-2020-update/

You may have a typo, the site shows that the top 50% pay 97.1%,

other

than that this s good, but don't expect it to make any difference.
Our left wing friends will still complain that the high income

people

don't pay enough.
I do have a suggestion however. 60% of Americans no receive more

from

the Federal government in transfer income than they pay in taxes,

why

not simply drop the bottom 20%, or even 40% off the tax roles
completely?
https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-receive-mor
e-

trans

fer-income-they-pay-taxes
Such a shift would be a way to actually help those people.

.
I have no idea were this discussion of 97.1% came from. I was
"Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not."
And my response was illustrating that the top 1% have a higher

average

tax rate than any other segment.

And you ignored my point about the
rich not paying taxes AT ALL.
Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records
Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid
Income Tax
June 8
In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and
now the worldâ€™s richest man, did not pay a penny
in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again
in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-
richest person in the world, also paid no federal
income taxes.
Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent
years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice.
George Soros paid no federal income tax three years
in a row.
We compared how much in taxes the 25 richest
Americans paid each year to how much Forbes
estimated their wealth grew in that same time
period. The results are stark. According to Forbes,
those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective
$401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total
of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those
five years, the IRS data shows. Thatâ€™s a staggering
sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.
https://tinyurl.com/9rw8t2vz

AND I agree with you about it not making any difference to the left.
Mitchell will continue saying that the rich do not pay their share

(if

any) of taxes.

The rich DON'T pay their share of taxes.

Yet as a group, the top 1% pay a higher percentage of total income in
taxes than any other group.

Wrong. They have a higher tax rate, but that
says nothing about what they actually PAY.

Bull shit! Support your claim!

I didn't make the claim that the top 1%
actually pays taxes at posted rate, Hartung
did.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-d
ata -2020-update

Post by David Hartung
You are cherry picking a few people an
claiming that they are the norm.

Why are you making excuses for tax dodgers?

.
You are a perfect example why the Framers of our Constitution did
not want the general public to vote for any federal official other
than their one representative.

The president is not a federal official?

.
Read the Constitution.
The Framers never intended the dumb masses to vote for the president.

We are not bound by what the slave-owning "Framers" intended,
not-jane, you mackerel-reeking cunt. They got that wrong. The
slave-owning "Framers" gave us the framework to correct that egregious
error. We should do it.
There is *nothing* in the evolution (yes!) of our political and legal
history that says we should not move to adopt a popularly elected
president. There is *nothing* in the structure of our federal
government that says the president should *not* be popularly elected.
Popular election of the president has *no* implications for either
federalism or separation of powers. You *know* this, not-jane, you
mackerel-reeking cunt. You know it because I have instructed you in
it numerous times.

Exactly.
The EC was created as a sop to slave owners
as "jayne" has been repeatedly told. No other
country has one. It needs to go.
The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
November 10, 2016
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary
Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct
national election of the president. But the
savvy Virginian James Madison responded that
such a system would prove unacceptable to the
South: "The right of suffrage was much more
diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern
than the Southern States; and the latter could
have no influence in the election on the score
of Negroes." In other words, in a direct
election system, the North would outnumber the
South, whose many slaves (more than half a
million in all) of course could not vote. But
the Electoral College—a prototype of which
Madison proposed in this same speech—instead
let each southern state count its slaves,
albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing
its share of the overall count.
After the 1800 census, Wilson’s free state of
Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than
Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes.
Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any
other slave state) bought or bred, the more
electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave
state to free any blacks who then moved North,
the state could actually lose electoral votes.
If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not
overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution
was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of
the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white
slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.
http://tinyurl.com/o2vbjdn

.
That dead horse has been beaten many times before.

Post by jane playne
You could not dispute that Bezos did nothing wrong and he did not "get away" with anything.

.

Read my earlier posts:
According to Pro Publica (Mitchell's citation) there were two years when Bezos paid no taxes. In those two years Bezos had NO income.

During the 5 years that Pro Publica published Bezos' income and taxes, Bezos paid a tax rate of 23.1%

Pure and simple; you are wrong.

Ubiquitous

2021-10-13 17:18:36 UTC

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 2:19:05 PM UTC-4, Mitchell
Holman

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs,
they get covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on
the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income
-t ax-

ata-2020-update/

You may have a typo, the site shows that the top 50% pay 97.1%,

other

than that this s good, but don't expect it to make any difference.
Our left wing friends will still complain that the high income

people

don't pay enough.
I do have a suggestion however. 60% of Americans no receive more

from

the Federal government in transfer income than they pay in taxes,

why

not simply drop the bottom 20%, or even 40% off the tax roles
completely?
https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-receive-mor
e-

trans

fer-income-they-pay-taxes
Such a shift would be a way to actually help those people.

.
I have no idea were this discussion of 97.1% came from. I was
"Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not."
And my response was illustrating that the top 1% have a higher

average

tax rate than any other segment.

And you ignored my point about the
rich not paying taxes AT ALL.
Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records
Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid
Income Tax
June 8
In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and
now the worldâ€™s richest man, did not pay a penny
in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again
in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-
richest person in the world, also paid no federal
income taxes.
Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent
years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice.
George Soros paid no federal income tax three years
in a row.
We compared how much in taxes the 25 richest
Americans paid each year to how much Forbes
estimated their wealth grew in that same time
period. The results are stark. According to Forbes,
those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective
$401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total
of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those
five years, the IRS data shows. Thatâ€™s a staggering
sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.
https://tinyurl.com/9rw8t2vz

AND I agree with you about it not making any difference to the left.
Mitchell will continue saying that the rich do not pay their share

(if

any) of taxes.

The rich DON'T pay their share of taxes.

Yet as a group, the top 1% pay a higher percentage of total income in
taxes than any other group.

Wrong. They have a higher tax rate, but that
says nothing about what they actually PAY.

Bull shit! Support your claim!

I didn't make the claim that the top 1%
actually pays taxes at posted rate, Hartung
did.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-d
ata -2020-update

Post by David Hartung
You are cherry picking a few people an
claiming that they are the norm.

Why are you making excuses for tax dodgers?

.
You are a perfect example why the Framers of our Constitution did
not want the general public to vote for any federal official other
than their one representative.

The president is not a federal official?

.
Read the Constitution.
The Framers never intended the dumb masses to vote for the president.

We are not bound by what the slave-owning "Framers" intended,
not-jane, you mackerel-reeking cunt. They got that wrong. The
slave-owning "Framers" gave us the framework to correct that egregious
error. We should do it.
There is *nothing* in the evolution (yes!) of our political and legal
history that says we should not move to adopt a popularly elected
president. There is *nothing* in the structure of our federal
government that says the president should *not* be popularly elected.
Popular election of the president has *no* implications for either
federalism or separation of powers. You *know* this, not-jane, you
mackerel-reeking cunt. You know it because I have instructed you in
it numerous times.

Exactly.
The EC was created as a sop to slave owners
as "jayne" has been repeatedly told. No other
country has one. It needs to go.
The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
November 10, 2016
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary
Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct
national election of the president. But the
savvy Virginian James Madison responded that
such a system would prove unacceptable to the
South: "The right of suffrage was much more
diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern
than the Southern States; and the latter could
have no influence in the election on the score
of Negroes." In other words, in a direct
election system, the North would outnumber the
South, whose many slaves (more than half a
million in all) of course could not vote. But
the Electoral College—a prototype of which
Madison proposed in this same speech—instead
let each southern state count its slaves,
albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing
its share of the overall count.
After the 1800 census, Wilson’s free state of
Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than
Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes.
Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any
other slave state) bought or bred, the more
electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave
state to free any blacks who then moved North,
the state could actually lose electoral votes.
If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not
overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution
was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of
the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white
slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.
http://tinyurl.com/o2vbjdn

.
That dead horse has been beaten many times before.

Post by jane playne
You could not dispute that Bezos did nothing wrong and he did not "get away" with anything.

.
According to Pro Publica (Mitchell's citation) there were two years when Bezos paid no taxes. In those two years Bezos had NO income.

That is simply a lie. With accounting jiggery-pokery, he made it *appear* that
he had no income, but he had income. The jiggery-pokery — that is, chiseling
and cheating — is by means that even people making many hundreds of thousands of
dollar a year in income, and in fact even into the low millions, cannot use.
Those means represent immoral *defects* in the tax code. They enable the
extremely rich to chisel and cheat.

Post by jane playne
During the 5 years that Pro Publica published Bezos' income and taxes, Bezos paid a tax rate of 23.1%

Whereas I, with minuscule fractions of Bezos's income and wealth, pay a higher
rate. That cannot be just.

Yak

2021-10-13 17:43:24 UTC

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 8:07:34 AM UTC-4, David Hartung

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 2:19:05 PM UTC-4, Mitchell
Holman

news:YKSdnblDB-

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs,
they get covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on
the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income
-t ax-

ata-2020-update/

You may have a typo, the site shows that the top 50% pay 97.1%,

other

than that this s good, but don't expect it to make any
difference.
Our left wing friends will still complain that the high income

people

don't pay enough.
I do have a suggestion however. 60% of Americans no receive more

from

the Federal government in transfer income than they pay in taxes,

why

not simply drop the bottom 20%, or even 40% off the tax roles
completely?
https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-receive-mor
e-

trans

fer-income-they-pay-taxes
Such a shift would be a way to actually help those people.

.
I have no idea were this discussion of 97.1% came from. I was
"Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not."
And my response was illustrating that the top 1% have a higher

average

tax rate than any other segment.

And you ignored my point about the
rich not paying taxes AT ALL.
Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records
Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid
Income Tax
June 8
In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and
now the worldâ€™s richest man, did not pay a penny
in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again
in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-
richest person in the world, also paid no federal
income taxes.
Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent
years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice.
George Soros paid no federal income tax three years
in a row.
We compared how much in taxes the 25 richest
Americans paid each year to how much Forbes
estimated their wealth grew in that same time
period. The results are stark. According to Forbes,
those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective
$401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total
of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those
five years, the IRS data shows. Thatâ€™s a staggering
sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.
https://tinyurl.com/9rw8t2vz

AND I agree with you about it not making any difference to the
left.
Mitchell will continue saying that the rich do not pay their share

(if

any) of taxes.

The rich DON'T pay their share of taxes.

Yet as a group, the top 1% pay a higher percentage of total income in
taxes than any other group.

Wrong. They have a higher tax rate, but that
says nothing about what they actually PAY.

Bull shit! Support your claim!

I didn't make the claim that the top 1%
actually pays taxes at posted rate, Hartung
did.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-d
ata -2020-update

Post by David Hartung
You are cherry picking a few people an
claiming that they are the norm.

Why are you making excuses for tax dodgers?

.
You are a perfect example why the Framers of our Constitution did
not want the general public to vote for any federal official other
than their one representative.

The president is not a federal official?

.
Read the Constitution.
The Framers never intended the dumb masses to vote for the president.

We are not bound by what the slave-owning "Framers" intended,
not-jane, you mackerel-reeking cunt. They got that wrong. The
slave-owning "Framers" gave us the framework to correct that egregious
error. We should do it.
There is *nothing* in the evolution (yes!) of our political and legal
history that says we should not move to adopt a popularly elected
president. There is *nothing* in the structure of our federal
government that says the president should *not* be popularly elected.
Popular election of the president has *no* implications for either
federalism or separation of powers. You *know* this, not-jane, you
mackerel-reeking cunt. You know it because I have instructed you in
it numerous times.

Exactly.
The EC was created as a sop to slave owners
as "jayne" has been repeatedly told. No other
country has one. It needs to go.
The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
November 10, 2016
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary
Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct
national election of the president. But the
savvy Virginian James Madison responded that
such a system would prove unacceptable to the
South: "The right of suffrage was much more
diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern
than the Southern States; and the latter could
have no influence in the election on the score
of Negroes." In other words, in a direct
election system, the North would outnumber the
South, whose many slaves (more than half a
million in all) of course could not vote. But
the Electoral College—a prototype of which
Madison proposed in this same speech—instead
let each southern state count its slaves,
albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing
its share of the overall count.
After the 1800 census, Wilson’s free state of
Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than
Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes.
Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any
other slave state) bought or bred, the more
electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave
state to free any blacks who then moved North,
the state could actually lose electoral votes.
If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not
overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution
was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of
the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white
slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.
http://tinyurl.com/o2vbjdn

.
That dead horse has been beaten many times before.

Post by jane playne
You could not dispute that Bezos did nothing wrong and he did not
"get away" with anything.

.
According to Pro Publica (Mitchell's citation) there were two years
when Bezos paid no taxes. In those two years Bezos had NO income.

That is simply a lie. With accounting jiggery-pokery, he made it
*appear* that he had no income, but he had income. The jiggery-pokery —
that is, chiseling and cheating — is by means that even people making
many hundreds of thousands of dollar a year in income, and in fact even
into the low millions, cannot use. Those means represent immoral
*defects* in the tax code. They enable the extremely rich to chisel and
cheat.

Post by jane playne
During the 5 years that Pro Publica published Bezos' income and taxes,
Bezos paid a tax rate of 23.1%

Whereas I, with minuscule fractions of Bezos's income and wealth, pay a
higher rate. That cannot be just.

You pay a higher income tax than Bezos? Bullshit.

Blue Lives Matter

2021-10-13 17:40:39 UTC

On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 09:26:07 -0700, Ubiquitous

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 2:19:05 PM UTC-4, Mitchell
Holman

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for costs,
they get covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on
the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income
-t ax-

ata-2020-update/

You may have a typo, the site shows that the top 50% pay 97.1%,

other

than that this s good, but don't expect it to make any difference.
Our left wing friends will still complain that the high income

people

don't pay enough.
I do have a suggestion however. 60% of Americans no receive more

from

the Federal government in transfer income than they pay in taxes,

why

not simply drop the bottom 20%, or even 40% off the tax roles
completely?
https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-receive-mor
e-

trans

fer-income-they-pay-taxes
Such a shift would be a way to actually help those people.

.
I have no idea were this discussion of 97.1% came from. I was
"Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not."
And my response was illustrating that the top 1% have a higher

average

tax rate than any other segment.

And you ignored my point about the
rich not paying taxes AT ALL.
Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records
Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid
Income Tax
June 8
In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and
now the worldâs richest man, did not pay a penny
in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again
in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-
richest person in the world, also paid no federal
income taxes.
Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent
years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice.
George Soros paid no federal income tax three years
in a row.
We compared how much in taxes the 25 richest
Americans paid each year to how much Forbes
estimated their wealth grew in that same time
period. The results are stark. According to Forbes,
those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective
$401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total
of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those
five years, the IRS data shows. Thatâs a staggering
sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.
https://tinyurl.com/9rw8t2vz

AND I agree with you about it not making any difference to the left.
Mitchell will continue saying that the rich do not pay their share

(if

any) of taxes.

The rich DON'T pay their share of taxes.

Yet as a group, the top 1% pay a higher percentage of total income in
taxes than any other group.

Wrong. They have a higher tax rate, but that
says nothing about what they actually PAY.

Bull shit! Support your claim!

I didn't make the claim that the top 1%
actually pays taxes at posted rate, Hartung
did.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-d
ata -2020-update

Post by David Hartung
You are cherry picking a few people an
claiming that they are the norm.

Why are you making excuses for tax dodgers?

.
You are a perfect example why the Framers of our Constitution did
not want the general public to vote for any federal official other
than their one representative.

The president is not a federal official?

.
Read the Constitution.
The Framers never intended the dumb masses to vote for the president.

We are not bound by what the slave-owning "Framers" intended,
not-jane, you mackerel-reeking cunt. They got that wrong. The
slave-owning "Framers" gave us the framework to correct that egregious
error. We should do it.
There is *nothing* in the evolution (yes!) of our political and legal
history that says we should not move to adopt a popularly elected
president. There is *nothing* in the structure of our federal
government that says the president should *not* be popularly elected.
Popular election of the president has *no* implications for either
federalism or separation of powers. You *know* this, not-jane, you
mackerel-reeking cunt. You know it because I have instructed you in
it numerous times.

Exactly.
The EC was created as a sop to slave owners
as "jayne" has been repeatedly told. No other
country has one. It needs to go.
The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
November 10, 2016
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary
Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct
national election of the president. But the
savvy Virginian James Madison responded that
such a system would prove unacceptable to the
South: "The right of suffrage was much more
diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern
than the Southern States; and the latter could
have no influence in the election on the score
of Negroes." In other words, in a direct
election system, the North would outnumber the
South, whose many slaves (more than half a
million in all) of course could not vote. But
the Electoral Collegea prototype of which
Madison proposed in this same speechinstead
let each southern state count its slaves,
albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing
its share of the overall count.
After the 1800 census, Wilsons free state of
Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than
Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes.
Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any
other slave state) bought or bred, the more
electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave
state to free any blacks who then moved North,
the state could actually lose electoral votes.
If the systems pro-slavery tilt was not
overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution
was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of
the Constitutions first 36 years, a white
slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.
http://tinyurl.com/o2vbjdn

.
That dead horse has been beaten many times before.

Post by jane playne
You could not dispute that Bezos did nothing wrong and he did not "get away" with anything.

<LOL> Utter nonsense...

Mitchell Holman

2021-10-13 18:08:37 UTC

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 8:07:34 AM UTC-4, David
Hartung

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 2:19:05 PM UTC-4, Mitchell
Holman

news:YKSdnblDB-

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for
costs, they get covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on
the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-inc
ome
-t ax-

ata-2020-update/

You may have a typo, the site shows that the top 50% pay 97.1%,

other

than that this s good, but don't expect it to make any difference.
Our left wing friends will still complain that the high income

people

don't pay enough.
I do have a suggestion however. 60% of Americans no receive more

from

the Federal government in transfer income than they pay in taxes,

why

not simply drop the bottom 20%, or even 40% off the tax roles
completely?
https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-receive-
mor
e-

trans

fer-income-they-pay-taxes
Such a shift would be a way to actually help those people.

.
I have no idea were this discussion of 97.1% came from. I
"Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not."
And my response was illustrating that the top 1% have a higher

average

tax rate than any other segment.

penny

Post by Mitchell Holman
in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again
in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-
richest person in the world, also paid no federal
income taxes.
Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent
years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice.
George Soros paid no federal income tax three years
in a row.
We compared how much in taxes the 25 richest
Americans paid each year to how much Forbes
estimated their wealth grew in that same time
period. The results are stark. According to Forbes,
those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective
$401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total
of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those
five years, the IRS data shows. ThatÃ¢â¬â¢s a s

taggering

Post by Mitchell Holman
sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.
https://tinyurl.com/9rw8t2vz

AND I agree with you about it not making any difference to
the
left.
Mitchell will continue saying that the rich do not pay their share

(if

any) of taxes.

The rich DON'T pay their share of taxes.

Yet as a group, the top 1% pay a higher percentage of total income in
taxes than any other group.

Wrong. They have a higher tax rate, but that
says nothing about what they actually PAY.

Bull shit! Support your claim!

I didn't make the claim that the top 1%
actually pays taxes at posted rate, Hartung
did.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-ta
x-d
ata -2020-update

Post by David Hartung
You are cherry picking a few people an
claiming that they are the norm.

Why are you making excuses for tax dodgers?

.
You are a perfect example why the Framers of our Constitution
did not want the general public to vote for any federal official
other
than their one representative.

The president is not a federal official?

.
Read the Constitution.
The Framers never intended the dumb masses to vote for the
president.

We are not bound by what the slave-owning "Framers" intended,
not-jane, you mackerel-reeking cunt. They got that wrong. The
slave-owning "Framers" gave us the framework to correct that egregious
error. We should do it.
There is *nothing* in the evolution (yes!) of our political and legal
history that says we should not move to adopt a popularly elected
president. There is *nothing* in the structure of our federal
government that says the president should *not* be popularly elected.
Popular election of the president has *no* implications for either
federalism or separation of powers. You *know* this, not-jane, you
mackerel-reeking cunt. You know it because I have instructed you in
it numerous times.

Exactly.
The EC was created as a sop to slave owners
as "jayne" has been repeatedly told. No other
country has one. It needs to go.
The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
November 10, 2016
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary
Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct
national election of the president. But the
savvy Virginian James Madison responded that
such a system would prove unacceptable to the
South: "The right of suffrage was much more
diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern
than the Southern States; and the latter could
have no influence in the election on the score
of Negroes." In other words, in a direct
election system, the North would outnumber the
South, whose many slaves (more than half a
million in all) of course could not vote. But
the Electoral Collegeâa prototype of which
Madison proposed in this same speechâinstead
let each southern state count its slaves,
albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing
its share of the overall count.
After the 1800 census, Wilsonâs free state of
Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than
Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes.
Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any
other slave state) bought or bred, the more
electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave
state to free any blacks who then moved North,
the state could actually lose electoral votes.
If the systemâs pro-slavery tilt was not
overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution
was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of
the Constitutionâs first 36 years, a white
slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.
http://tinyurl.com/o2vbjdn

.
That dead horse has been beaten many times before.
You could not dispute that Bezos did nothing wrong and he did not
"get away" with anything.

Who said Bezo did anything wrong?

All his tax evasions were legal
and THAT is the problem, as we have
discovered.

David Hartung

2021-10-14 00:07:07 UTC

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 8:07:34 AM UTC-4, David
Hartung

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 2:19:05 PM UTC-4, Mitchell
Holman

news:YKSdnblDB-

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for
costs, they get covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on
the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-inc
ome
-t ax-

ata-2020-update/

You may have a typo, the site shows that the top 50% pay 97.1%,

other

than that this s good, but don't expect it to make any difference.
Our left wing friends will still complain that the high income

people

don't pay enough.
I do have a suggestion however. 60% of Americans no receive more

from

the Federal government in transfer income than they pay in taxes,

why

not simply drop the bottom 20%, or even 40% off the tax roles
completely?
https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-receive-
mor
e-

trans

fer-income-they-pay-taxes
Such a shift would be a way to actually help those people.

.
I have no idea were this discussion of 97.1% came from. I
"Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not."
And my response was illustrating that the top 1% have a higher

average

tax rate than any other segment.

penny

taggering

Post by Mitchell Holman
sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.
https://tinyurl.com/9rw8t2vz

AND I agree with you about it not making any difference to
the
left.
Mitchell will continue saying that the rich do not pay their share

(if

any) of taxes.

The rich DON'T pay their share of taxes.

Yet as a group, the top 1% pay a higher percentage of total income in
taxes than any other group.

Wrong. They have a higher tax rate, but that
says nothing about what they actually PAY.

Bull shit! Support your claim!

I didn't make the claim that the top 1%
actually pays taxes at posted rate, Hartung
did.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-ta
x-d
ata -2020-update

Post by David Hartung
You are cherry picking a few people an
claiming that they are the norm.

Why are you making excuses for tax dodgers?

.
You are a perfect example why the Framers of our Constitution
did not want the general public to vote for any federal official
other
than their one representative.

The president is not a federal official?

.
Read the Constitution.
The Framers never intended the dumb masses to vote for the
president.

We are not bound by what the slave-owning "Framers" intended,
not-jane, you mackerel-reeking cunt. They got that wrong. The
slave-owning "Framers" gave us the framework to correct that egregious
error. We should do it.
There is *nothing* in the evolution (yes!) of our political and legal
history that says we should not move to adopt a popularly elected
president. There is *nothing* in the structure of our federal
government that says the president should *not* be popularly elected.
Popular election of the president has *no* implications for either
federalism or separation of powers. You *know* this, not-jane, you
mackerel-reeking cunt. You know it because I have instructed you in
it numerous times.

Exactly.
The EC was created as a sop to slave owners
as "jayne" has been repeatedly told. No other
country has one. It needs to go.
The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
November 10, 2016
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary
Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct
national election of the president. But the
savvy Virginian James Madison responded that
such a system would prove unacceptable to the
South: "The right of suffrage was much more
diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern
than the Southern States; and the latter could
have no influence in the election on the score
of Negroes." In other words, in a direct
election system, the North would outnumber the
South, whose many slaves (more than half a
million in all) of course could not vote. But
the Electoral College—a prototype of which
Madison proposed in this same speech—instead
let each southern state count its slaves,
albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing
its share of the overall count.
After the 1800 census, Wilson’s free state of
Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than
Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes.
Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any
other slave state) bought or bred, the more
electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave
state to free any blacks who then moved North,
the state could actually lose electoral votes.
If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not
overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution
was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of
the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white
slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.
http://tinyurl.com/o2vbjdn

.
That dead horse has been beaten many times before.
You could not dispute that Bezos did nothing wrong and he did not
"get away" with anything.

Who said Bezo did anything wrong?
All his tax evasions were legal
and THAT is the problem, as we have
discovered.

The income group to ehih Bezo belongs pays the highest effective tax
rate of any group and you say that they do not pay enough?

Mitchell Holman

2021-10-14 02:08:31 UTC

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 8:07:34 AM UTC-4, David
Hartung

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 2:19:05 PM UTC-4, Mitchell
Holman

news:YKSdnblDB-

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for
costs, they get covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on
the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-

inc

ome
-t ax-

ata-2020-update/

You may have a typo, the site shows that the top 50% pay 97.1%,

other

than that this s good, but don't expect it to make any difference.
Our left wing friends will still complain that the high income

people

don't pay enough.
I do have a suggestion however. 60% of Americans no receive more

from

the Federal government in transfer income than they pay in taxes,

why

not simply drop the bottom 20%, or even 40% off the tax roles
completely?
https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-

receive-

mor
e-

trans

fer-income-they-pay-taxes
Such a shift would be a way to actually help those people.

.
I have no idea were this discussion of 97.1% came from. I
"Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not."
And my response was illustrating that the top 1% have a higher

average

tax rate than any other segment.

penny

taggering

Post by Mitchell Holman
sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.
https://tinyurl.com/9rw8t2vz

AND I agree with you about it not making any difference to
the
left.
Mitchell will continue saying that the rich do not pay their share

(if

any) of taxes.

The rich DON'T pay their share of taxes.

Yet as a group, the top 1% pay a higher percentage of total income in
taxes than any other group.

Wrong. They have a higher tax rate, but that
says nothing about what they actually PAY.

Bull shit! Support your claim!

I didn't make the claim that the top 1%
actually pays taxes at posted rate, Hartung
did.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-

x-d
ata -2020-update

Post by David Hartung
You are cherry picking a few people an
claiming that they are the norm.

Why are you making excuses for tax dodgers?

.
You are a perfect example why the Framers of our Constitution
did not want the general public to vote for any federal official
other
than their one representative.

The president is not a federal official?

.
Read the Constitution.
The Framers never intended the dumb masses to vote for the president.

We are not bound by what the slave-owning "Framers" intended,
not-jane, you mackerel-reeking cunt. They got that wrong. The
slave-owning "Framers" gave us the framework to correct that egregious
error. We should do it.
There is *nothing* in the evolution (yes!) of our political and legal
history that says we should not move to adopt a popularly elected
president. There is *nothing* in the structure of our federal
government that says the president should *not* be popularly elected.
Popular election of the president has *no* implications for either
federalism or separation of powers. You *know* this, not-jane, you
mackerel-reeking cunt. You know it because I have instructed you in
it numerous times.

Exactly.
The EC was created as a sop to slave owners
as "jayne" has been repeatedly told. No other
country has one. It needs to go.
The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
November 10, 2016
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary
Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct
national election of the president. But the
savvy Virginian James Madison responded that
such a system would prove unacceptable to the
South: "The right of suffrage was much more
diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern
than the Southern States; and the latter could
have no influence in the election on the score
of Negroes." In other words, in a direct
election system, the North would outnumber the
South, whose many slaves (more than half a
million in all) of course could not vote. But
the Electoral Collegeâa prototype of which
Madison proposed in this same speechâinstead
let each southern state count its slaves,
albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing
its share of the overall count.
After the 1800 census, Wilsonâs free state of
Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than
Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes.
Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any
other slave state) bought or bred, the more
electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave
state to free any blacks who then moved North,
the state could actually lose electoral votes.
If the systemâs pro-slavery tilt was not
overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution
was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of
the Constitutionâs first 36 years, a white
slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.
http://tinyurl.com/o2vbjdn

.
That dead horse has been beaten many times before.
You could not dispute that Bezos did nothing wrong and he did not
"get away" with anything.

Who said Bezo did anything wrong?
All his tax evasions were legal
and THAT is the problem, as we have
discovered.

The income group to ehih Bezo belongs pays the highest effective tax
rate of any group and you say that they do not pay enough?

1) Since Bezos goes for years without
paying ANY tax (see above) who cares what
his "tax rate group" is?

2) How often do YOU go with paying no
taxes at all?

David Hartung

2021-10-14 09:36:28 UTC

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 8:07:34 AM UTC-4, David
Hartung

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 2:19:05 PM UTC-4, Mitchell
Holman

news:YKSdnblDB-

Post by Blue Lives Matter
On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:20:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman
So corporate costs "trickle down" to
the rest of us but corporate profits do not.

<LOL> Not unless you buy the stock, Dummy. As for
costs, they get covered by consumers.

Posts such as Holman's are nothing more than jealousy on
the part
of the poster.

Whereas Hartung is proud to pay more
in taxes than Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump and
the entire Walton Family. Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not.

.
Tax Rates of the
Top 1%: 26.8%
Top 5%: 23.7%
Top 10%: 21.5%
Top 25%: 18.2%
Top 50%: 16.0%
BOTTOM 50%: 4%
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-

inc

ome
-t ax-

ata-2020-update/

You may have a typo, the site shows that the top 50% pay 97.1%,

other

than that this s good, but don't expect it to make any
difference.
Our left wing friends will still complain that the high income

people

don't pay enough.
I do have a suggestion however. 60% of Americans no receive more

from

the Federal government in transfer income than they pay in taxes,

why

not simply drop the bottom 20%, or even 40% off the tax roles
completely?
https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-

receive-

mor
e-

trans

fer-income-they-pay-taxes
Such a shift would be a way to actually help those people.

.
I have no idea were this discussion of 97.1% came from. I
"Only working people
need to support America, the billionaires
do not."
And my response was illustrating that the top 1% have a higher

average

tax rate than any other segment.

penny

taggering

Post by Mitchell Holman
sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.
https://tinyurl.com/9rw8t2vz

AND I agree with you about it not making any difference to
the
left.
Mitchell will continue saying that the rich do not pay their share

(if

any) of taxes.

The rich DON'T pay their share of taxes.

Yet as a group, the top 1% pay a higher percentage of total income in
taxes than any other group.

Wrong. They have a higher tax rate, but that
says nothing about what they actually PAY.

Bull shit! Support your claim!

I didn't make the claim that the top 1%
actually pays taxes at posted rate, Hartung
did.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-

x-d
ata -2020-update

Post by David Hartung
You are cherry picking a few people an
claiming that they are the norm.

Why are you making excuses for tax dodgers?

.
You are a perfect example why the Framers of our Constitution
did not want the general public to vote for any federal official
other
than their one representative.

The president is not a federal official?

.
Read the Constitution.
The Framers never intended the dumb masses to vote for the president.

We are not bound by what the slave-owning "Framers" intended,
not-jane, you mackerel-reeking cunt. They got that wrong. The
slave-owning "Framers" gave us the framework to correct that egregious
error. We should do it.
There is *nothing* in the evolution (yes!) of our political and legal
history that says we should not move to adopt a popularly elected
president. There is *nothing* in the structure of our federal
government that says the president should *not* be popularly elected.
Popular election of the president has *no* implications for either
federalism or separation of powers. You *know* this, not-jane, you
mackerel-reeking cunt. You know it because I have instructed you in
it numerous times.

Exactly.
The EC was created as a sop to slave owners
as "jayne" has been repeatedly told. No other
country has one. It needs to go.
The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
November 10, 2016
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary
Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct
national election of the president. But the
savvy Virginian James Madison responded that
such a system would prove unacceptable to the
South: "The right of suffrage was much more
diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern
than the Southern States; and the latter could
have no influence in the election on the score
of Negroes." In other words, in a direct
election system, the North would outnumber the
South, whose many slaves (more than half a
million in all) of course could not vote. But
the Electoral College—a prototype of which
Madison proposed in this same speech—instead
let each southern state count its slaves,
albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing
its share of the overall count.
After the 1800 census, Wilson’s free state of
Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than
Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes.
Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any
other slave state) bought or bred, the more
electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave
state to free any blacks who then moved North,
the state could actually lose electoral votes.
If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not
overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution
was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of
the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white
slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.
http://tinyurl.com/o2vbjdn

.
That dead horse has been beaten many times before.
You could not dispute that Bezos did nothing wrong and he did not
"get away" with anything.

Who said Bezo did anything wrong?
All his tax evasions were legal
and THAT is the problem, as we have
discovered.

The income group to ehih Bezo belongs pays the highest effective tax
rate of any group and you say that they do not pay enough?

1) Since Bezos goes for years without
paying ANY tax (see above) who cares what
his "tax rate group" is?
2) How often do YOU go with paying no
taxes at all?

Your ranting aside, the top 1% in our nation pays the highest effective
tax rate.

Siri Cruise

2021-10-14 10:21:41 UTC

Post by David Hartung
Your ranting aside, the top 1% in our nation pays the highest effective
tax rate.

What do they have after taxes and spending? We can refer to that
as leisure money.

The poor have nothing left or less than nothing. No leisure money.

The rich do little or less actual productive work; most that is
done by the poor, and rest by middle class. So why do the rich
deserve so much more leisure money for doing fuck all in actual
production?

Meanwhile Jesus was a commie. Peter and Paul organised christians
into communes. Ananias and Sapphira show us what their god
thought of the greedy rich.

Blue Lives Matter

2021-10-14 10:32:41 UTC

Post by David Hartung
Your ranting aside, the top 1% in our nation pays the highest effective
tax rate.

What do they have after taxes and spending? We can refer to that
as leisure money.
The poor have nothing left or less than nothing. No leisure money.

Nearly all the "poor" pay no income tax at all. MAny recieve cash and
benefits instead.

Post by Siri Cruise
The rich do little or less actual productive work; most that is
done by the poor, and rest by middle class. So why do the rich
deserve so much more leisure money for doing fuck all in actual
production?
Meanwhile Jesus was a commie. Peter and Paul organised christians
into communes. Ananias and Sapphira show us what their god
thought of the greedy rich.

David Hartung

2021-10-14 12:57:56 UTC

Post by David Hartung
Your ranting aside, the top 1% in our nation pays the highest effective
tax rate.

What do they have after taxes and spending? We can refer to that
as leisure money.
The poor have nothing left or less than nothing. No leisure money.

Nearly all the "poor" pay no income tax at all. MAny recieve cash and
benefits instead.

In point of fact, the bottom 20-40% of income earners receive more in
benefits from government than they pay in taxes.

David Hartung

2021-10-14 12:56:52 UTC

Post by David Hartung
Your ranting aside, the top 1% in our nation pays the highest effective
tax rate.

You do realize that there is a difference between wealth and income?

Post by Siri Cruise
Meanwhile Jesus was a commie. Peter and Paul organised christians
into communes. Ananias and Sapphira show us what their god
thought of the greedy rich.

Go back and read the account of Ananias and Sapphira again. What got
them in trouble is not that they kept the proceeds of their land sale,
but that they lied about it.

Mitchell Holman

2021-10-14 13:14:20 UTC

Post by David Hartung
Your ranting aside, the top 1% in our nation pays the highest effective
tax rate.

What do they have after taxes and spending? We can refer to that
as leisure money.

Hartung routinely pays more in taxes
than Trump and Bezos but he wants us to
feel sorry for them and give them even
MORE tax breaks.

Sheesh............

Siri Cruise

2021-10-13 20:05:09 UTC

Post by Mitchell Holman
The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists

No.

It was created because different states have different
requirements to vote. The College is a way to chunk votes so that
each state gets a contribution to the presidential election
roughly proportional to its population. The way electors are
selected distort the vote.

It could be changed some way so that each state's electors are
proportional to that state's vote. Whatever is done this chunking
serves an important purpose. If we simply put all votes
nationwide in a single pot, a state can increase its influence by
tricks like lowerring its voting age so more people can vote.
Otherwise we have to set up nationwide registration rules
allowing republican disenfranchisement nationwide.

The pro-slavery part is not the College. The pro-slavery part was
deciding how each state's is counted to figure out its proportion
in the House of Representatives. The count included citizens
eligible to vote, citizens not eligible (like wee children), and
permanent residents who are free and not citizens. The compromise
allowed also to count people who were otherwise property and not
human. Free people could move to another state and so allow
representation to track a state's popularity. Slaves could not
move freely; people could buy more slaves, thus more
representation regardless the preferences of the captives.

Blue Lives Matter

2021-10-11 20:01:32 UTC

On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 13:25:57 -0500, Mitchell Holman