Higher income earners’ children are more valuable to our nation?

Aug 7, 2010
211
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#1
Higher income earners’ children are more valuable to our nation?

Regulations determine the values of higher income earners’ dependents are of greater per capita values than those of lesser earners.

Income tax payers are generally entitled to a $3900 reduction from their taxable incomes for themselves and each of their dependents.
Proponents of our current practice believe this policy properly rewards payers of greater taxes more per capita benefits than those in the lower income brackets.

I’m among proponents for the actual value of our per capita income tax considerations not being completely dependent upon the taxpayers’ income brackets. The per capita benefit due to a taxpayer should be dependent children or parent should be of uniform value regardless of the taxpayers’ income brackets or the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar during each taxable year.

We advocate the per capita be a uniform amount of tax credits rather than deductions from taxable incomes. Initially that amount should be a revenue neutral amount. After the change’s enactment, that amount should be annually reviewed and when necessary adjusted to comply with the variable federal cost-price index number.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Aug 7, 2010
211
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#3
Quote:Originally Posted by Supposn
Higher income earners’ children are more valuable to our nation?

In a nutshell - Yes!!!
Odds are the that they will be much better contributors to society. :cool::cool::cool:
Aufgeblassen, are you suggesting that democracy is less preferable than government policies primarily determined by the more wealthy segments of our society? Should we return to the policies that permitted only land owners to vote?

Romney also believed that lesser wealth equated to lesser and/or poorer judgments:
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what ... who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... and so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives".
He also contended “Corporations are people”; I’ll believe that when corporations are imprisoned for the felonies they cause to be committed upon their behalf.

Many of us believe the Supreme Court’s Citizens’ United” decision brings us closer to resurrecting political campaign contributors’ overwhelming powers prior to Theodor Roosevelt’s presidency. They then more generally purchased the powers to determine our national policies.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#4
That is a fascinating question.

I believe that if we are to continue with the income tax, we should allow the vote based on how much income tax one pays. A welfare bum or someone on food stamps should not get a vote at all. The first dollar of income tax should buy a vote. And every extra $10,000 in income tax paid should get one an additional vote.

We've tried it the other way, where the illiterate lazy bums elect Democrats. Maybe we should look at the possibility of intelligent people deciding who the national leaders should be.
Agree 100%. We need rule by the taxed, not mob.
 
Aug 7, 2010
211
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#5
That is a fascinating question.

I believe that if we are to continue with the income tax, we should allow the vote based on how much income tax one pays. A welfare bum or someone on food stamps should not get a vote at all. The first dollar of income tax should buy a vote. And every extra $10,000 in income tax paid should get one an additional vote.

We've tried it the other way, where the illiterate lazy bums elect Democrats. Maybe we should look at the possibility of intelligent people deciding who the national leaders should be.
Reason 10, I’m a populist and thus of course disagree with you.

I assume you vote for Republicans (to better support your preference) and I suppose you will continue to do so.
It is the Republicans that strive to reduce the numbers of general election voters.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#6
Republicans only want to reduce that number to people who are in this country legally as citizens. Also, we're trying really hard to cut down on the number of votes from people who have been dead and buried for years.

And if at all possible, we'd like to limit the votes to ONE per person. I know that by itself may clean out Congress of all Democrats, but it's worth considering.
:giggle: If not for gerrymandering the Rubus wouldn't have any Congressional seats that didn't come from flyover states. The Dems have an almost 2:1 advantage on Repubs and no, that's not counting the 0.001% dead vote.
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#7
All "United" did was affirm the FIRST AMENDMENT.

Strange, how you liberals have such a selective opinion of the Constitution.
No, it hid behind the 1st amendment. Money (bits of things used to standardize the value of trade) isn't speech (the conveyance of ideas). That ruling was a legal and logical farce to justify the buying of elections. Nobody actually buys that crap but it's convenient to those of certain ideological and economic positions.
 
Likes: 1 person
Aug 7, 2010
211
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#8
A basic civics test should be passed before someone gets a Voter's Card. Clueless people should not be voting!!!

We would have been a MUCH better country if only the intelligent could vote. The last 7 years a a perfect example!!! :D
Aufgeblassen, gee; I would have thought the majority of people consider the period of 2001 through 2008 as among the examples of inferior federal administrations.
But I suppose we all consider only OUR people and not THEIR people.

Regarding the “basic civic test” that you refer to: who determines the questions and the correct answers?
When pole taxes were deemed to be illegal, the pretenses of such qualifying tests of voters were enacted in order to prevent “THEM” from voting.

I don’t recall who said it but I did then and now agree that the late Ohio Senator Robert A. Taft was “like a computer that digests all of the facts and generally comes up with the wrong answers”. Bob Taft, (i.e. “Mr. Republican”) was an unsuccessful presidential Republican primary candidate in 1940, 1948 and 1952.

There are many who are knowledgeable of facts but (in my opinion) demonstrate extremely poor judgment. Votes for candidates are the voters’ judgments of the individuals and or their comparative qualities.

When discussing political matters, we consciously and sub-consciously carry our own impressions and experiences of our entire personal histories with us.

Every proposed, existing or comparative determination of governmental laws, regulations, or policies should stand upon their own merits. But we don’t all perceive everything from the same vantage points or with equal consideration for the same ancestors.

It’s not difficult to tolerate those that think as we do but democracy requires that we have some reasonable tolerance for all others.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#9
Free speech is free speech. Problem is, you liberals think it only applies to people on the hard left.
Again, money is something to standardized value, speech is the conveyance of ideas. No amount of spin changes that, to call money speech is to throw away the dictionary and abandon logic.
 
Likes: 1 person
Aug 7, 2010
211
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#10
Not compared to the cluster**** of 2008-now. The Bush administration was a lot better than the disaster we have now.

Uh, you probably should be aware (and maybe Aufgeblassen was right about something) that they were poll taxes. Unless you want to raise taxes on strippers who sometimes engage in pole dancing. Perhaps that civics test is a better idea than I thought.

Reason10, you’re response is to contend Republican **** is absolutely superior to Democratic ****?

Regarding disasters, were you pleased with the federal responses to Huricane Katrina?

We’re still deep into of the **** due to both Democrats and Republicans. My primary dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party is they're too similar to the Republican Party.

When I wrote of pole taxes being deemed to be illegal, and thus the pretenses of voter qualifying tests were enacted in order to prevent “THEM” from voting, I was referring to the pretense of passing and administrating legal civics tests.

What was your response post referring to?

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Aug 7, 2010
211
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#11
... and maybe Aufgeblassen was right about something ... Perhaps that civics test is a better idea than I thought.
Reason10, I suppose if Aufgeblassen could remain on my right while I was leaning against a wall on my right, he and I may or may not be right.

I iterate that all proposed, existing or comparative determination of governmental laws, regulations, or policies should stand upon their own merits. But we don’t all perceive everything from the same vantage points or with equal consideration for the same ancestors.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#12
So it won't bother you to order George Soros to quit funding MSNBC? It won't bother you to order unions NOT to contribute to any Democrat candidate?
No it wouldn't. You seem to have this strange idea that I'm a neo-liberal, I suggest you change your thinking unless you like arguing against your own strawmen.