|
|
On September 22 2012 09:37 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:30 Sanctimonius wrote:On September 22 2012 09:24 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2012 09:20 SayGen wrote:
I thought the UK was pro flat tax.... Thought with the same high quality thinking that backs 9-9-9. Maggie Thatcher tried to implement a flat tax rate, the Poll Tax. Cue months of sometimes violent protests until she abolished the idea. As Kwark pointed out taxing the poor a flat rate regardless of individual circumstance, income, expenditure etc isn't the best of ideas, and will quickly make their bad situation worse. Added to which why would you advocate taxing the middle class and especially the upper class less? That would debase the tax base even more, making the hole that is the US economy even worse. history shows that it is the middle class/ rich that are the lifeblood of any country. Poor people don't ever contribute to society--or to be more correct- they dont put in as much as they take out. (Hence why Stalin took all his poor and put them on the front lines in WWII) I don't want the poor to be abused, or mistreated- but I do want them to carry their weight- because I want my country to thrive and grow. I want less tax for everyone, including the poor that actually do the right thing and pay their bills- I just want less hand outs- and more hand ups.
Employing Stalinest principles of governing the poor while basically using government rhetoric one letter away from a declaration of arrest won't win you many fans. Not as many as a pizza chain in any case.
|
On September 22 2012 08:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 08:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 22 2012 08:47 SayGen wrote:Hence why I don't like Romney. He sucks. It's his lucky day Obama sucks worse. Where is Ron Paul/Hermain Cain/Rand Paul/ Gary Johnson when you need him..... Let's go through this together. You say 'fuck obama' because now we won't have funding for schools and research. Romney's plan cuts funding for schools and research. Obama's does not. You need to think this out more. Counterargument: Obama's reckless increase in government debt and unfunded liabilities will, over the long run, eat into school and research budgets. Romney's cuts by comparison are smaller and more sustainable. Difficulty funding pensions is already having such an effect on state budgets, why not the Federal budget too?
Romney's plan calls for massive cuts on virtually every government program outside of Medicare, Social Security, and Defense. Your argument states 'what if' Obama's plan screws us in the long run. Romney is promising to screw us right out of the gate.
|
On September 22 2012 09:41 RavenLoud wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:37 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 09:30 Sanctimonius wrote:On September 22 2012 09:24 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2012 09:20 SayGen wrote:
I thought the UK was pro flat tax.... Thought with the same high quality thinking that backs 9-9-9. Maggie Thatcher tried to implement a flat tax rate, the Poll Tax. Cue months of sometimes violent protests until she abolished the idea. As Kwark pointed out taxing the poor a flat rate regardless of individual circumstance, income, expenditure etc isn't the best of ideas, and will quickly make their bad situation worse. Added to which why would you advocate taxing the middle class and especially the upper class less? That would debase the tax base even more, making the hole that is the US economy even worse. history shows that it is the middle class/ rich that are the lifeblood of any country.
Poor people don't ever contribute to society--or to be more correct- they dont put in as much as they take out.
(Hence why Stalin took all his poor and put them on the front lines in WWII)I don't want the poor to be abused, or mistreated- but I do want them to carry their weight- because I want my country to thrive and grow. I want less tax for everyone, including the poor that actually do the right thing and pay their bills- I just want less hand outs- and more hand ups. What in the flying fuck. I don't even...*facedesk*
Really come on, that was plain english.
Kid grows up, gets free school (tax payers fund)
Poor kids get free lunch (tax payer fund)
Kid turns 18 and gets a job but doesn't pay taxes cause he makes less than 20,000 (differs by state)
Kid having held a job is now eligable for SSecurity (Tax payer fund)
Kid loses his job cause of bad economy or w/e and goes on welfare (tax payer fund)
Kid sits at home and plays video games all day eating free food he got with food stamps (tax payer fund)
Kid works odd jobs that never break 20,000 a year or lies and says he makes under 20K
Kid turns 65 and gets SS (tax payer fund)
Kid has heart attack and gets free care (Tax payer fund)
Kid now old man dies and can't even buy his own coffen so he gets creamated for free (tax payer fund)
Drained out of society his whole life, and never put anything back so hard working, productive members of society have to pick up his slack.
In WWII one of the 1st groups Stalin targeted was the poor, becase he knew that fighting with them in his army was a win/win
They die- less drain on the society
They kill Germans- less drain on society
|
United Kingdom861 Posts
On September 22 2012 09:37 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:30 Sanctimonius wrote:On September 22 2012 09:24 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2012 09:20 SayGen wrote:
I thought the UK was pro flat tax.... Thought with the same high quality thinking that backs 9-9-9. Maggie Thatcher tried to implement a flat tax rate, the Poll Tax. Cue months of sometimes violent protests until she abolished the idea. As Kwark pointed out taxing the poor a flat rate regardless of individual circumstance, income, expenditure etc isn't the best of ideas, and will quickly make their bad situation worse. Added to which why would you advocate taxing the middle class and especially the upper class less? That would debase the tax base even more, making the hole that is the US economy even worse. history shows that it is the middle class/ rich that are the lifeblood of any country. Poor people don't ever contribute to society--or to be more correct- they dont put in as much as they take out. (Hence why Stalin took all his poor and put them on the front lines in WWII) I don't want the poor to be abused, or mistreated- but I do want them to carry their weight- because I want my country to thrive and grow. I want less tax for everyone, including the poor that actually do the right thing and pay their bills- I just want less hand outs- and more hand ups.
I...what? I'm calling bullshit on this one. The Poor, throughout history, have been the primary reason for anything happening. The upper and middle classes create the impetus for anything happening - literally, the idea and the money. But it's the poor man who manned the engines, filled the ranks of the armies, tilled the fields, fucking made everything work for the upper people to live so comfortably, as they do now, as they always have done. The poor are literally, literally the lifeblood of the country, completely the opposite of what you are asserting. They are the only reason any idea can work, they are the reason why any country or business can work. Think of it this way, the CEO doesn't do the work in a company, he comes up with the direction. A captain doesn't man the engines, he steers the craft. It's the poor who make things go. Poor don't ever contribute....? Fuck me, you have no idea about what you are saying. We are trying to meet you halfway here and have a reasonable debate but don't throw out wildly inaccurate statements like that and expect to walk away unscathed. Fuck me.
Anyways, I am curious, what exactly is a hand-up? You've mentioned them a few times now, I'm not sure what it means.
|
On September 22 2012 09:33 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:26 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On September 22 2012 09:20 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 09:17 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2012 09:15 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 09:15 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2012 09:04 farvacola wrote:On September 22 2012 09:00 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 08:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 22 2012 08:55 SayGen wrote:
[quote]
Rather him quote Pokemon than Obama talk about reality TV and make appearences on TV sitcoms The key is unintentionally. The man was at best out purely for advertisement and at worst a buffoon. There was no compelling reason to vote for him over having no president at all, to be honest. 1) Support government transparency 2) 9-9-9 tax plan that would close loop holes for the rich, lower taxes for the rich- and attempt to be very close to revenue neutral as possible. 3) Common Sense solutions- less government 4) Traditional conservatives views. 5) He wasn't a politican, he was a business man. Ladies and gentleman, we've found ourselves a believer in the 9-9-9 tax. My goodness, I thought they didn't really exist. How could anything be fairer than a flat tax rate taking the same proportion from those most able to pay as those least able to pay? Is that sarcasm or do you actually agree with me on something? Of course it's sarcasm. The proportion of people who can't see the obvious problems with the 9-9-9 plan is actually lower than the proportion of people in society who are actually legitimately retarded. I don't see how it's not fair... The rich pay the most, the poor pay the least- the middle is the middle. The only other plan that I think could be more fair is the removal of all taxes with a massive increase on sales tax. This way you are only taxed on what you buy. Rich people buy alot of junk they pay the most. Poor people buy the least expensive things and would pay the least. I thought the UK was pro flat tax.... I am afraid your sales tax idea is a little backwards. As a % of income the rich spend less than the poor who have to spend most of their money just to buy the basic things like food and gas. This would essentially make it even harder for the poor to get by and the rich would still be fine if not even better off. We don't have sales tax on life essencial goods- least in my state http://revenue.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/332F2097-1179-4EBC-989F-C5074B482593/0/sufacts_v6n2.pdfNow gas isn't needed, because cars arn't needed. Maybe it's different for others, but a poor person could still get by without ever paying a single tax dollar. But name one rich dude who doens't own a nice car/home/boat all are taxable.
Meh my uncle is easily top 0.5% and he drives a cheap old 2002 volkswagon, lives in a house that is smaller than mine and doesn't like boats. So there is one person for you.
Anecdotes aside, Very high sales tax would make it much harder for low income families to make purchases which would be bad for the economy as well as make life unnecessarilly harder for them. I would also argue that for most people who want to make a decent living a commute to work is probably likely, therefore gasoline is needed.
And the Stalin rant you are going on almost makes it sound like you would not mind the poor dying on the street provided the rich do not have to pay higher taxes.
|
On September 22 2012 09:22 rogzardo wrote:
Removing income tax altogether is a really good plan Saygen. I don't see how that wouldn't work out.
Actually it is not a completely uncommon assumption for economists that a society will function better if there was no income tax. Economic proponents wants to increase the sale-taxes significantly to account for the losses (really exposing the problem of the 9-9-9 proposition!).
How to assure the society against black market trade and how to get from the existing system to that system without a significant period of private sector freefall recession has not been explained. There are several other indirect pains from the zero tax system that would make the weapon industry scream in rage and precidents cry over loss of geo-political power.
I think Johnson is the closest candidate to those thoughts.
|
On September 22 2012 09:43 rogzardo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 08:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 22 2012 08:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 22 2012 08:47 SayGen wrote:Hence why I don't like Romney. He sucks. It's his lucky day Obama sucks worse. Where is Ron Paul/Hermain Cain/Rand Paul/ Gary Johnson when you need him..... Let's go through this together. You say 'fuck obama' because now we won't have funding for schools and research. Romney's plan cuts funding for schools and research. Obama's does not. You need to think this out more. Counterargument: Obama's reckless increase in government debt and unfunded liabilities will, over the long run, eat into school and research budgets. Romney's cuts by comparison are smaller and more sustainable. Difficulty funding pensions is already having such an effect on state budgets, why not the Federal budget too? Romney's plan calls for massive cuts on virtually every government program outside of Medicare, Social Security, and Defense. Your argument states 'what if' Obama's plan screws us in the long run. Romney is promising to screw us right out of the gate.
Massive cuts that screw us? Can you provide an example?
|
To say that a man takes from society more than he gives when he's out on the front lines protecting his country from being invaded, is exactly to say that his life is worthless.
He'd be out there freezing to death or getting his limbs blown off for your safety and prosperity, and you're picking up his slack?
What is wrong with you?
|
On September 22 2012 09:46 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:41 RavenLoud wrote:On September 22 2012 09:37 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 09:30 Sanctimonius wrote:On September 22 2012 09:24 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2012 09:20 SayGen wrote:
I thought the UK was pro flat tax.... Thought with the same high quality thinking that backs 9-9-9. Maggie Thatcher tried to implement a flat tax rate, the Poll Tax. Cue months of sometimes violent protests until she abolished the idea. As Kwark pointed out taxing the poor a flat rate regardless of individual circumstance, income, expenditure etc isn't the best of ideas, and will quickly make their bad situation worse. Added to which why would you advocate taxing the middle class and especially the upper class less? That would debase the tax base even more, making the hole that is the US economy even worse. history shows that it is the middle class/ rich that are the lifeblood of any country.
Poor people don't ever contribute to society--or to be more correct- they dont put in as much as they take out.
(Hence why Stalin took all his poor and put them on the front lines in WWII)I don't want the poor to be abused, or mistreated- but I do want them to carry their weight- because I want my country to thrive and grow. I want less tax for everyone, including the poor that actually do the right thing and pay their bills- I just want less hand outs- and more hand ups. What in the flying fuck. I don't even...*facedesk* Really come on, that was plain english. Kid grows up, gets free school (tax payers fund) Poor kids get free lunch (tax payer fund) Kid turns 18 and gets a job but doesn't pay taxes cause he makes less than 20,000 (differs by state) Kid having held a job is now eligable for SSecurity (Tax payer fund) Kid loses his job cause of bad economy or w/e and goes on welfare (tax payer fund) Kid sits at home and plays video games all day eating free food he got with food stamps (tax payer fund) Kid works odd jobs that never break 20,000 a year or lies and says he makes under 20K Kid turns 65 and gets SS (tax payer fund) Kid has heart attack and gets free care (Tax payer fund) Kid now old man dies and can't even buy his own coffen so he gets creamated for free (tax payer fund) Drained out of society his whole life, and never put anything back so hard working, productive members of society have to pick up his slack. In WWII one of the 1st groups Stalin targeted was the poor, becase he knew that fighting with them in his army was a win/win They die- less drain on the society They kill Germans- less drain on society
Think about this: without the poor working for him, how does a rich man gets rich?
Without the peasants, there can be no kings. The king probably doesn't even know how to cook.
Stop that disgusting and dehumanizing monetization of human lives please. Our lives aren't worth just the amount of taxes we pay, if you can't see that then I really pity you.
Saying that the poor should be better off dead is truly worthy of a psychopath, keep talking until you earn that ban..tbh I'm surprised you haven't yet.
|
On September 22 2012 09:37 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:30 Sanctimonius wrote:On September 22 2012 09:24 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2012 09:20 SayGen wrote:
I thought the UK was pro flat tax.... Thought with the same high quality thinking that backs 9-9-9. Maggie Thatcher tried to implement a flat tax rate, the Poll Tax. Cue months of sometimes violent protests until she abolished the idea. As Kwark pointed out taxing the poor a flat rate regardless of individual circumstance, income, expenditure etc isn't the best of ideas, and will quickly make their bad situation worse. Added to which why would you advocate taxing the middle class and especially the upper class less? That would debase the tax base even more, making the hole that is the US economy even worse. history shows that it is the middle class/ rich that are the lifeblood of any country. Poor people don't ever contribute to society--or to be more correct- they dont put in as much as they take out. ( Hence why Stalin took all his poor and put them on the front lines in WWII) I don't want the poor to be abused, or mistreated- but I do want them to carry their weight- because I want my country to thrive and grow. I want less tax for everyone, including the poor that actually do the right thing and pay their bills- I just want less hand outs- and more hand ups.
This statement makes very little sense in the context of a communist state with a very tiny ruling class. Stalinist USSR didn't really have a "middle class." And I think you're completely wrong with respect to your statement about the poor, but whatever.
|
|
|
On September 22 2012 09:49 Sanctimonius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:37 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 09:30 Sanctimonius wrote:On September 22 2012 09:24 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2012 09:20 SayGen wrote:
I thought the UK was pro flat tax.... Thought with the same high quality thinking that backs 9-9-9. Maggie Thatcher tried to implement a flat tax rate, the Poll Tax. Cue months of sometimes violent protests until she abolished the idea. As Kwark pointed out taxing the poor a flat rate regardless of individual circumstance, income, expenditure etc isn't the best of ideas, and will quickly make their bad situation worse. Added to which why would you advocate taxing the middle class and especially the upper class less? That would debase the tax base even more, making the hole that is the US economy even worse. history shows that it is the middle class/ rich that are the lifeblood of any country. Poor people don't ever contribute to society--or to be more correct- they dont put in as much as they take out. (Hence why Stalin took all his poor and put them on the front lines in WWII) I don't want the poor to be abused, or mistreated- but I do want them to carry their weight- because I want my country to thrive and grow. I want less tax for everyone, including the poor that actually do the right thing and pay their bills- I just want less hand outs- and more hand ups. I...what? I'm calling bullshit on this one. The Poor, throughout history, have been the primary reason for anything happening. The upper and middle classes create the impetus for anything happening - literally, the idea and the money. But it's the poor man who manned the engines, filled the ranks of the armies, tilled the fields, fucking made everything work for the upper people to live so comfortably, as they do now, as they always have done. The poor are literally, literally the lifeblood of the country, completely the opposite of what you are asserting. They are the only reason any idea can work, they are the reason why any country or business can work. Think of it this way, the CEO doesn't do the work in a company, he comes up with the direction. A captain doesn't man the engines, he steers the craft. It's the poor who make things go. Poor don't ever contribute....? Fuck me, you have no idea about what you are saying. We are trying to meet you halfway here and have a reasonable debate but don't throw out wildly inaccurate statements like that and expect to walk away unscathed. Fuck me. Anyways, I am curious, what exactly is a hand-up? You've mentioned them a few times now, I'm not sure what it means.
Starting in reverse order.
Hand up is the conservative idea that if someone does what is reasonible expected of him.
Gets a job, goes to college/tradeschool/military and gets sick/hurt that we as a society should reward his effort by giving him a 'hand up' onto his feet so he can try again.
A hand out is when you never teach a man to fish, thus he is spending the rest of his life asking you to catch fish for him.
One leads to adding to the ranks of productive people.
One leads to adding a drain to productive people.
Ok hopefully that was a simple illistration- if not jsut ask and i'll try again.
Now as far as the poor being the lifeblood.
That's false. Poor people would have to have a job to 'man the engines' 'till the fields' 'be part of the military'
I for example am middle class. I am a military member. Some of my friends are poor, they arn't in the military, they are at home right now playing video games and eating free sandwhiches that tax payers bought for them.
The middle class are your workers. They are the idea creators. they are the inventors and entrepreneurs.
They are the designers, and builders, and traders.
The poor don't do anytihng- that's why they are called poor.
Poor people don't hold jobs, some do it on purpose to stay udner the 20K limit to avoid losing their food stamps and paying taxes. Some are just really lazy and don't want to work.
Now before we continue I must stress that I am not in any way refering to the cripple, old, injured, etc
I'm tlkaing about 10 fingers and 10 toe'd people who are able to do work but choose not to.
|
On September 22 2012 09:46 SayGen wrote:
Kid turns 18 and gets a job but doesn't pay taxes cause he makes less than 20,000 (differs by state)
And why is that now?
Also, just because I despise your ideology:
coffen
We obviously need to work harder on our:
free school
|
On September 22 2012 09:51 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:33 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 09:26 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On September 22 2012 09:20 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 09:17 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2012 09:15 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 09:15 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2012 09:04 farvacola wrote:On September 22 2012 09:00 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 08:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
The key is unintentionally. The man was at best out purely for advertisement and at worst a buffoon. There was no compelling reason to vote for him over having no president at all, to be honest. 1) Support government transparency 2) 9-9-9 tax plan that would close loop holes for the rich, lower taxes for the rich- and attempt to be very close to revenue neutral as possible. 3) Common Sense solutions- less government 4) Traditional conservatives views. 5) He wasn't a politican, he was a business man. Ladies and gentleman, we've found ourselves a believer in the 9-9-9 tax. My goodness, I thought they didn't really exist. How could anything be fairer than a flat tax rate taking the same proportion from those most able to pay as those least able to pay? Is that sarcasm or do you actually agree with me on something? Of course it's sarcasm. The proportion of people who can't see the obvious problems with the 9-9-9 plan is actually lower than the proportion of people in society who are actually legitimately retarded. I don't see how it's not fair... The rich pay the most, the poor pay the least- the middle is the middle. The only other plan that I think could be more fair is the removal of all taxes with a massive increase on sales tax. This way you are only taxed on what you buy. Rich people buy alot of junk they pay the most. Poor people buy the least expensive things and would pay the least. I thought the UK was pro flat tax.... I am afraid your sales tax idea is a little backwards. As a % of income the rich spend less than the poor who have to spend most of their money just to buy the basic things like food and gas. This would essentially make it even harder for the poor to get by and the rich would still be fine if not even better off. We don't have sales tax on life essencial goods- least in my state http://revenue.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/332F2097-1179-4EBC-989F-C5074B482593/0/sufacts_v6n2.pdfNow gas isn't needed, because cars arn't needed. Maybe it's different for others, but a poor person could still get by without ever paying a single tax dollar. But name one rich dude who doens't own a nice car/home/boat all are taxable. Meh my uncle is easily top 0.5% and he drives a cheap old 2002 volkswagon, lives in a house that is smaller than mine and doesn't like boats. So there is one person for you. Anecdotes aside, Very high sales tax would make it much harder for low income families to make purchases which would be bad for the economy as well as make life unnecessarilly harder for them. I would also argue that for most people who want to make a decent living a commute to work is probably likely, therefore gasoline is needed. And the Stalin rant you are going on almost makes it sound like you would not mind the poor dying on the street provided the rich do not have to pay higher taxes.
I was thinking really hard of a way that the poor contribute to a society and that was all I could think up.
|
On September 22 2012 09:59 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:51 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On September 22 2012 09:33 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 09:26 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On September 22 2012 09:20 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 09:17 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2012 09:15 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 09:15 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2012 09:04 farvacola wrote:On September 22 2012 09:00 SayGen wrote:
[quote]
1) Support government transparency
2) 9-9-9 tax plan that would close loop holes for the rich, lower taxes for the rich- and attempt to be very close to revenue neutral as possible.
3) Common Sense solutions- less government
4) Traditional conservatives views.
5) He wasn't a politican, he was a business man.
Ladies and gentleman, we've found ourselves a believer in the 9-9-9 tax. My goodness, I thought they didn't really exist. How could anything be fairer than a flat tax rate taking the same proportion from those most able to pay as those least able to pay? Is that sarcasm or do you actually agree with me on something? Of course it's sarcasm. The proportion of people who can't see the obvious problems with the 9-9-9 plan is actually lower than the proportion of people in society who are actually legitimately retarded. I don't see how it's not fair... The rich pay the most, the poor pay the least- the middle is the middle. The only other plan that I think could be more fair is the removal of all taxes with a massive increase on sales tax. This way you are only taxed on what you buy. Rich people buy alot of junk they pay the most. Poor people buy the least expensive things and would pay the least. I thought the UK was pro flat tax.... I am afraid your sales tax idea is a little backwards. As a % of income the rich spend less than the poor who have to spend most of their money just to buy the basic things like food and gas. This would essentially make it even harder for the poor to get by and the rich would still be fine if not even better off. We don't have sales tax on life essencial goods- least in my state http://revenue.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/332F2097-1179-4EBC-989F-C5074B482593/0/sufacts_v6n2.pdfNow gas isn't needed, because cars arn't needed. Maybe it's different for others, but a poor person could still get by without ever paying a single tax dollar. But name one rich dude who doens't own a nice car/home/boat all are taxable. Meh my uncle is easily top 0.5% and he drives a cheap old 2002 volkswagon, lives in a house that is smaller than mine and doesn't like boats. So there is one person for you. Anecdotes aside, Very high sales tax would make it much harder for low income families to make purchases which would be bad for the economy as well as make life unnecessarilly harder for them. I would also argue that for most people who want to make a decent living a commute to work is probably likely, therefore gasoline is needed. And the Stalin rant you are going on almost makes it sound like you would not mind the poor dying on the street provided the rich do not have to pay higher taxes. I was thinking really hard of a way that the poor contribute to a society and that was all I could think up.
Who do you think works all the shitty jobs that your bourgeois ass can't be bothered to take?
|
United States44436 Posts
SayGen, you are not middle class, you are working class. There's a difference.
|
On September 22 2012 09:57 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:46 SayGen wrote:
Kid turns 18 and gets a job but doesn't pay taxes cause he makes less than 20,000 (differs by state)
And why is that now? Also, just because I despise your ideology: We obviously need to work harder on our:
I'm avoiding spell check in an attempt to address questions/comments in a timly manner.
When it comes to grammar queens I'd point out that spelling is irrelevent so long as the message is comprehendable
(Yes I just made several more errors)
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh?
|
On September 22 2012 10:01 KwarK wrote:
SayGen, you are not middle class, you are working class. There's a difference.
You beat me to it.
|
On September 22 2012 10:01 KwarK wrote:
SayGen, you are not middle class, you are working class. There's a difference.
Not in America.
Middle is working.
Rich don't work, or they are at the TOP of their career fields
middle class do everything
poor do nothing
Americans don't have a working class.
|
On September 22 2012 10:01 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:57 sam!zdat wrote:On September 22 2012 09:46 SayGen wrote:
Kid turns 18 and gets a job but doesn't pay taxes cause he makes less than 20,000 (differs by state)
And why is that now? Also, just because I despise your ideology:
coffen
We obviously need to work harder on our:
free school
I'm avoiding spell check
Well, if our
free school
were any good you wouldn't need to use spell check to spell "coffin" correctly.
But I digress.
On September 22 2012 10:02 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 10:01 KwarK wrote:
SayGen, you are not middle class, you are working class. There's a difference. Not in America. Middle is working. Rich don't work, or they are at the TOP of their career fields middle class do everything poor do nothing Americans don't have a working class.
Oh man you are adorable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
