Glen wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>>
>>>If he had no taxable income.. then why would he pay taxes on it?
>>
>> The wealthy elites make the (unfair) rules. We have a corrupt system
>> where the wealthy can bribe lawmakers into creating unfair rules.
>
> (bullshit snipped)

The vast majority in congress paupers, when compared to the truly
wealthy.

Are you really going to deny that the wealthy elite lobby/bribe our
lawmakers for tax loopholes?

>> No reasonable person can pretend that this doesn't exist. No decent
>> person would call a system where billionaires pay no income tax fair.
>> It's *obviously* not.
>
> (bullshit snipped)

What you call a "smart person" is taking advantage of their undue
influence over the tax laws.

No one is a "sucker" to believe that it's unfair that a fscking
*billionaire* pays no income taxes. For years and years!

Do us a favor, and keep your "it's perfectly fair" bullshit to
yourself.

rbowman wrote:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>> Depends on the sauce. Sweet Baby Rays? A favorite of the fucker
>> Zuckerberg.
>
>Urrrrp. I've tried Ray's Sugar Free and it isn't too bad but the mention
>of Zuckerberg killed that for me.

As the "Internet privacy guy" Rob Braxman says, you've been Zucked!

--
'lie: "WinDOS is now unapologetically *spying* on its users."' -
DumFSck, lying shamelessly

On 2024-10-04 6:33 p.m., chrisv wrote:
> rbowman wrote:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>> Depends on the sauce. Sweet Baby Rays? A favorite of the fucker
>>> Zuckerberg.
>>
>> Urrrrp. I've tried Ray's Sugar Free and it isn't too bad but the mention
>> of Zuckerberg killed that for me.
>
> As the "Internet privacy guy" Rob Braxman says, you've been Zucked!

I'm glad someone else here is a fan of that guy.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:vuo0gjddq63t34om0863gbtvj1c92qu9dv@4ax.com...
> Glen wrote:
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>>>If he had no taxable income.. then why would he pay taxes on it?
>>>
>>> The wealthy elites make the (unfair) rules. We have a corrupt system
>>> where the wealthy can bribe lawmakers into creating unfair rules.
>>
>> (bullshit snipped)
>
> The vast majority in congress paupers, when compared to the truly
> wealthy.
>
> Are you really going to deny that the wealthy elite lobby/bribe our
> lawmakers for tax loopholes?

Why? The lawmakers use those loopholes for their own evasion of taxation.

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:vdp4j2$9f9b$2@dont-email.me...
> On 10/4/24 11:20 AM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>> news:vdom3g$764f$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On 10/3/24 11:15 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:vdf28c$2c3hr$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>> On 9/30/24 1:08 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote in news:vddo52$1u779$4@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/29/24 22:58, me too wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Make them pay their fair share!"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And when the populace is asked what percentage that "fair
>>>>>>>> share" is, it is usually under what they are already
>>>>>>>> paying.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it's not - not when a teacher, or nurse pays a greater
>>>>>>> percentage of
>>>>>>> their income than a billionaire.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They STILL pay less in taxes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> True, but that's being a tad dishonest in avoiding the stated point.
>>>>>
>>>>> That point was "fair share". Its metric was "percentage of income",
>>>>> which is very consistent with how this topic is discussed.
>>>>
>>>> Ok.. a flat rate income tax all other taxes shall be revoked.
>>>>
>>>> Everyone pays the same rate on all income whether a billionaire or a
>>>> beggar on the street.
>>>>
>>>> if unrealized income is taxed, then ALL unrealized income is taxed.
>>>> From cardboard box the beggar set up a home in, to stock value
>>>> increases, property and real estate. If you can't afford the tax you
>>>> will have to liquidate assets to pay it. If the value declines later..
>>>> you don't get a refund.
>>>>
>>>> Is that what you had in mind.. or are you going to start making it
>>>> unfair?
>>>
>>> Unrealized is already taxed, & if you were a homeowner, you'd know that.
>>
>> No it's not. Property tax assessments are regularly far below market
>> value and are paid whether the house increased in value or decreased.
>
> Doesn't matter, because its not what you originally paid.

Yep, but property tax is a different thing than income tax.

Further I'm not aware of anywhere that requires 25% of the assessed value in
property value for property taxes.

So unless you are going to assess everyone's INCOME tax on changes in the
value of what they own.. you are comparing apples and oranges.

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:vdp3vf$9f9b$1@dont-email.me...
> On 10/4/24 11:39 AM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>> news:vdom3i$764f$2@dont-email.me...
>>> On 10/3/24 11:45 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:vdhfak$2qm3f$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>> On 9/30/24 11:51 PM, T wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/30/24 15:23, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/30/2024 2:38 PM,Fuckwit -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/30/24 1:08 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> news:vddo52$1u779$4@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/29/24 22:58, me too wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Make them pay their fair share!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And when the populace is asked what percentage that "fair
>>>>>>>>>>>> share" is, it is usually under what they are already
>>>>>>>>>>>> paying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not - not when a teacher, or nurse pays a greater
>>>>>>>>>>> percentage of
>>>>>>>>>>> their income than a billionaire.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They STILL pay less in taxes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> True, but that's being a tad dishonest in avoiding the stated
>>>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That point was "fair share". Its metric was "percentage of
>>>>>>>>> income",
>>>>>>>>> which is very consistent with how this topic is discussed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A steak is $15.00 at the grocery store. It's "fair" if a poor person
>>>>>>> buys it or a rich person buys it. It costs either one of them $15
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's fair
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you seriously think both are on the same budget???
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Klaus has a point, but it isn't the one that you're thinking of.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason is that Klaus's analogy relies on an underlying assumption
>>>>> in his steak analogy, namely that a government service has an equal
>>>>> benefit to a poor person and a rich person. For example, a public
>>>>> road: the poor person may not have a car with which to use that
>>>>> service benefit, whereas the rich person not only uses the roads, but
>>>>> his customers do too. As such, the rich person benefits _more_ from
>>>>> that service.
>>>>
>>>> Whereas the poor person benefits more from police protection given the
>>>> rich guy has hired private security for his protection.
>>>
>>> Not at all, for even if a rich guy hires private security, it is done to
>>> increase the existing security to above what the public gets:
>>
>> No, actually it usually takes over totally, with the only condition being
>> the criminal gets handed over to the police.. or perhaps not.
>
> Oh, so how much is this private security also out patrolling the poor
> neighborhoods to keep them from degrading? You know, "broken windows"?

It's not their job.

But you are free to go out on patrol in poor neighborhoods all you like.

On 10/7/24 9:57 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
> news:vdp4j2$9f9b$2@dont-email.me...
>> On 10/4/24 11:20 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>> news:vdom3g$764f$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 10/3/24 11:15 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:vdf28c$2c3hr$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> On 9/30/24 1:08 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>> [Default]  Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote in news:vddo52$1u779$4@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/29/24 22:58, me too wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Make them pay their fair share!"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And when the populace is asked what percentage that "fair
>>>>>>>>> share" is, it is usually under what they are already
>>>>>>>>> paying.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it's not - not when a teacher, or nurse pays a greater
>>>>>>>> percentage of
>>>>>>>> their income than a billionaire.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They STILL pay less in taxes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True, but that's being a tad dishonest in avoiding the stated point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That point was "fair share".  Its metric was "percentage of
>>>>>> income", which is very consistent with how this topic is discussed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok.. a flat rate income tax all other taxes shall be revoked.
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone pays the same rate on all income whether a billionaire or
>>>>> a beggar on the street.
>>>>>
>>>>> if unrealized income is taxed, then ALL unrealized income is taxed.
>>>>> From cardboard box the beggar set up a home in, to stock value
>>>>> increases, property and real estate. If you can't afford the tax
>>>>> you will have to liquidate assets to pay it. If the value declines
>>>>> later.. you don't get a refund.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that what you had in mind.. or are you going to start making it
>>>>> unfair?
>>>>
>>>> Unrealized is already taxed, & if you were a homeowner, you'd know
>>>> that.
>>>
>>> No it's not. Property tax assessments are regularly far below market
>>> value and are paid whether the house increased in value or decreased.
>>
>> Doesn't matter, because its not what you originally paid.
>
> Yep, but property tax is a different thing than income tax.

You're right: its functionally a *wealth* tax, the same as the proposal
that you're so upset about, and as such, it represents the precedent
that you've tried to suggest that should never be crossed.

> Further I'm not aware of anywhere that requires 25% of the assessed
> value in property value for property taxes.

The rate of taxation doesn't matter when you were focused before on
merely the precedent of taxing wealth.

> So unless you are going to assess everyone's INCOME tax on changes in
> the value of what they own.. you are comparing apples and oranges.

Except its never been an INCOME tax in question, but a wealth tax.

Plus FYI, property taxes isn't the sole precedent in which there's been
taxes imposed on one's wealth in the USA. Once again, you're simply
showing the newsgroups that you don't know much about the topic before
you regurgitated the opinion which you were told that you should have.

-hh

On 10/7/24 9:58 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
> news:vdp3vf$9f9b$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 10/4/24 11:39 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>> news:vdom3i$764f$2@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 10/3/24 11:45 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:vdhfak$2qm3f$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> On 9/30/24 11:51 PM, T wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/30/24 15:23, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/30/2024 2:38 PM,Fuckwit  -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/30/24 1:08 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> [Default]  Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote in news:vddo52$1u779$4@dont-
>>>>>>>>>>>> email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/29/24 22:58, me too wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Make them pay their fair share!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when the populace is asked what percentage that "fair
>>>>>>>>>>>>> share" is, it is usually under what they are already
>>>>>>>>>>>>> paying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not - not when a teacher, or nurse pays a greater
>>>>>>>>>>>> percentage of
>>>>>>>>>>>> their income than a billionaire.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> They STILL pay less in taxes
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> True, but that's being a tad dishonest in avoiding the stated
>>>>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That point was "fair share".  Its metric was "percentage of
>>>>>>>>>> income",
>>>>>>>>>> which is very consistent with how this topic is discussed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A steak is $15.00 at the grocery store. It's "fair" if a poor
>>>>>>>> person
>>>>>>>> buys it or a rich person buys it. It costs either one of them $15
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's fair
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you seriously think both are on the same budget???
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Klaus has a point, but it isn't the one that you're thinking of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reason is that Klaus's analogy relies on an underlying
>>>>>> assumption in his steak analogy, namely that a government service
>>>>>> has an equal benefit to a poor person and a rich person.  For
>>>>>> example, a public road:  the poor person may not have a car with
>>>>>> which to use that service benefit, whereas the rich person not
>>>>>> only uses the roads, but his customers do too.  As such, the rich
>>>>>> person benefits _more_ from that service.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whereas the poor person benefits more from police protection given
>>>>> the rich guy has hired private security for his protection.
>>>>
>>>> Not at all, for even if a rich guy hires private security, it is
>>>> done to increase the existing security to above what the public gets:
>>>
>>> No, actually it usually takes over totally, with the only condition
>>> being the criminal gets handed over to the police.. or perhaps not.
>>
>> Oh, so how much is this private security also out patrolling the poor
>> neighborhoods to keep them from degrading?  You know, "broken windows"?
>
> It's not their job.

Yet you'll get upset when a guy's on a public right-of-way with a gun
next to a golf course isn't detected by security fast enough!

> But you are free to go out on patrol in poor neighborhoods all you like.

Functionally, I already do, by having an apportionment of my taxes which
pay for the local municipality's police to patrol everywhere.

-hh

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:ve0t70$1olec$1@dont-email.me...
> On 10/7/24 9:57 AM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>> news:vdp4j2$9f9b$2@dont-email.me...
>>> On 10/4/24 11:20 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:vdom3g$764f$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>> On 10/3/24 11:15 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:vdf28c$2c3hr$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>> On 9/30/24 1:08 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote in news:vddo52$1u779$4@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/29/24 22:58, me too wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Make them pay their fair share!"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And when the populace is asked what percentage that "fair
>>>>>>>>>> share" is, it is usually under what they are already
>>>>>>>>>> paying.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, it's not - not when a teacher, or nurse pays a greater
>>>>>>>>> percentage of
>>>>>>>>> their income than a billionaire.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They STILL pay less in taxes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True, but that's being a tad dishonest in avoiding the stated point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That point was "fair share". Its metric was "percentage of income",
>>>>>>> which is very consistent with how this topic is discussed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok.. a flat rate income tax all other taxes shall be revoked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everyone pays the same rate on all income whether a billionaire or a
>>>>>> beggar on the street.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if unrealized income is taxed, then ALL unrealized income is taxed.
>>>>>> From cardboard box the beggar set up a home in, to stock value
>>>>>> increases, property and real estate. If you can't afford the tax you
>>>>>> will have to liquidate assets to pay it. If the value declines
>>>>>> later.. you don't get a refund.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that what you had in mind.. or are you going to start making it
>>>>>> unfair?
>>>>>
>>>>> Unrealized is already taxed, & if you were a homeowner, you'd know
>>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> No it's not. Property tax assessments are regularly far below market
>>>> value and are paid whether the house increased in value or decreased.
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter, because its not what you originally paid.
>>
>> Yep, but property tax is a different thing than income tax.
>
> You're right: its functionally a *wealth* tax, the same as the proposal
> that you're so upset about, and as such, it represents the precedent that
> you've tried to suggest that should never be crossed.

Excellent.. then let's apply it to ALL.

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:ve0tbm$1olec$2@dont-email.me...
> On 10/7/24 9:58 AM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>> news:vdp3vf$9f9b$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On 10/4/24 11:39 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:vdom3i$764f$2@dont-email.me...
>>>>> On 10/3/24 11:45 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:vdhfak$2qm3f$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>> On 9/30/24 11:51 PM, T wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/30/24 15:23, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/30/2024 2:38 PM,Fuckwit -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/30/24 1:08 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote in news:vddo52$1u779$4@dont-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/29/24 22:58, me too wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Make them pay their fair share!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when the populace is asked what percentage that "fair
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> share" is, it is usually under what they are already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not - not when a teacher, or nurse pays a greater
>>>>>>>>>>>>> percentage of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their income than a billionaire.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> They STILL pay less in taxes
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> True, but that's being a tad dishonest in avoiding the stated
>>>>>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That point was "fair share". Its metric was "percentage of
>>>>>>>>>>> income",
>>>>>>>>>>> which is very consistent with how this topic is discussed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A steak is $15.00 at the grocery store. It's "fair" if a poor
>>>>>>>>> person
>>>>>>>>> buys it or a rich person buys it. It costs either one of them $15
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's fair
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you seriously think both are on the same budget???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Klaus has a point, but it isn't the one that you're thinking of.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The reason is that Klaus's analogy relies on an underlying
>>>>>>> assumption in his steak analogy, namely that a government service
>>>>>>> has an equal benefit to a poor person and a rich person. For
>>>>>>> example, a public road: the poor person may not have a car with
>>>>>>> which to use that service benefit, whereas the rich person not only
>>>>>>> uses the roads, but his customers do too. As such, the rich person
>>>>>>> benefits _more_ from that service.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whereas the poor person benefits more from police protection given
>>>>>> the rich guy has hired private security for his protection.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all, for even if a rich guy hires private security, it is done
>>>>> to increase the existing security to above what the public gets:
>>>>
>>>> No, actually it usually takes over totally, with the only condition
>>>> being the criminal gets handed over to the police.. or perhaps not.
>>>
>>> Oh, so how much is this private security also out patrolling the poor
>>> neighborhoods to keep them from degrading? You know, "broken windows"?
>>
>> It's not their job.
>
> Yet you'll get upset when a guy's on a public right-of-way with a gun next
> to a golf course isn't detected by security fast enough!

Why would I be upset?

I would probably be that guy, and if not I almost certainly wouldn't care.

>> But you are free to go out on patrol in poor neighborhoods all you like.
>
> Functionally, I already do, by having an apportionment of my taxes which
> pay for the local municipality's police to patrol everywhere.

Then you don't. and it's pretty clear the police don't or why would the
crime be so high there.

Maybe we need to raise your taxes....

On 10/7/24 1:02 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
> news:ve0t70$1olec$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 10/7/24 9:57 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>> news:vdp4j2$9f9b$2@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 10/4/24 11:20 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:vdom3g$764f$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> On 10/3/24 11:15 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:vdf28c$2c3hr$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>> On 9/30/24 1:08 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [Default]  Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote in news:vddo52$1u779$4@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/29/24 22:58, me too wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Make them pay their fair share!"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And when the populace is asked what percentage that "fair
>>>>>>>>>>> share" is, it is usually under what they are already
>>>>>>>>>>> paying.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not - not when a teacher, or nurse pays a greater
>>>>>>>>>> percentage of
>>>>>>>>>> their income than a billionaire.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They STILL pay less in taxes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True, but that's being a tad dishonest in avoiding the stated
>>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That point was "fair share".  Its metric was "percentage of
>>>>>>>> income", which is very consistent with how this topic is discussed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok.. a flat rate income tax all other taxes shall be revoked.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everyone pays the same rate on all income whether a billionaire
>>>>>>> or a beggar on the street.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if unrealized income is taxed, then ALL unrealized income is
>>>>>>> taxed. From cardboard box the beggar set up a home in, to stock
>>>>>>> value increases, property and real estate. If you can't afford
>>>>>>> the tax you will have to liquidate assets to pay it. If the value
>>>>>>> declines later.. you don't get a refund.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is that what you had in mind.. or are you going to start making
>>>>>>> it unfair?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unrealized is already taxed, & if you were a homeowner, you'd know
>>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it's not. Property tax assessments are regularly far below
>>>>> market value and are paid whether the house increased in value or
>>>>> decreased.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't matter, because its not what you originally paid.
>>>
>>> Yep, but property tax is a different thing than income tax.
>>
>> You're right:  its functionally a *wealth* tax, the same as the
>> proposal that you're so upset about, and as such, it represents the
>> precedent that you've tried to suggest that should never be crossed.
>
> Excellent.. then let's apply it to ALL.

Gosh, its amazing how you've gone from "No, it doesn't exist" to "Okay,
then make everyone pay".

In the meantime, there's invariably already loopholes to hide/circumvent
what's been proposed, plus there's also known tax dodging done in at
least some of the 43 states which have a personal property tax (TPP):
it invokes the question of having a minimum threshold floor for
reporting so as to reduce its overhead expenses.

-hh

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:ve1b33$1or30$1@dont-email.me...
> On 10/7/24 1:02 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>> news:ve0t70$1olec$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On 10/7/24 9:57 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:vdp4j2$9f9b$2@dont-email.me...
>>>>> On 10/4/24 11:20 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:vdom3g$764f$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>> On 10/3/24 11:15 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:vdf28c$2c3hr$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>>> On 9/30/24 1:08 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> news:vddo52$1u779$4@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/29/24 22:58, me too wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Make them pay their fair share!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And when the populace is asked what percentage that "fair
>>>>>>>>>>>> share" is, it is usually under what they are already
>>>>>>>>>>>> paying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not - not when a teacher, or nurse pays a greater
>>>>>>>>>>> percentage of
>>>>>>>>>>> their income than a billionaire.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They STILL pay less in taxes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> True, but that's being a tad dishonest in avoiding the stated
>>>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That point was "fair share". Its metric was "percentage of
>>>>>>>>> income", which is very consistent with how this topic is
>>>>>>>>> discussed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ok.. a flat rate income tax all other taxes shall be revoked.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Everyone pays the same rate on all income whether a billionaire or
>>>>>>>> a beggar on the street.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> if unrealized income is taxed, then ALL unrealized income is taxed.
>>>>>>>> From cardboard box the beggar set up a home in, to stock value
>>>>>>>> increases, property and real estate. If you can't afford the tax
>>>>>>>> you will have to liquidate assets to pay it. If the value declines
>>>>>>>> later.. you don't get a refund.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is that what you had in mind.. or are you going to start making it
>>>>>>>> unfair?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unrealized is already taxed, & if you were a homeowner, you'd know
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No it's not. Property tax assessments are regularly far below market
>>>>>> value and are paid whether the house increased in value or decreased.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't matter, because its not what you originally paid.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, but property tax is a different thing than income tax.
>>>
>>> You're right: its functionally a *wealth* tax, the same as the proposal
>>> that you're so upset about, and as such, it represents the precedent
>>> that you've tried to suggest that should never be crossed.
>>
>> Excellent.. then let's apply it to ALL.
>
> Gosh, its amazing how you've gone from "No, it doesn't exist" to "Okay,
> then make everyone pay".

Have to try to keep up with your goal post moves.

On 10/8/24 9:31 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
> news:ve1b33$1or30$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 10/7/24 1:02 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ve0t70$1olec$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 10/7/24 9:57 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:vdp4j2$9f9b$2@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> On 10/4/24 11:20 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:vdom3g$764f$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>> On 10/3/24 11:15 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:vdf28c$2c3hr$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/30/24 1:08 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> [Default]  Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote in news:vddo52$1u779$4@dont-
>>>>>>>>>>>> email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/29/24 22:58, me too wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Make them pay their fair share!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when the populace is asked what percentage that "fair
>>>>>>>>>>>>> share" is, it is usually under what they are already
>>>>>>>>>>>>> paying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not - not when a teacher, or nurse pays a greater
>>>>>>>>>>>> percentage of
>>>>>>>>>>>> their income than a billionaire.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> They STILL pay less in taxes
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> True, but that's being a tad dishonest in avoiding the stated
>>>>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That point was "fair share".  Its metric was "percentage of
>>>>>>>>>> income", which is very consistent with how this topic is
>>>>>>>>>> discussed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ok.. a flat rate income tax all other taxes shall be revoked.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Everyone pays the same rate on all income whether a billionaire
>>>>>>>>> or a beggar on the street.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> if unrealized income is taxed, then ALL unrealized income is
>>>>>>>>> taxed. From cardboard box the beggar set up a home in, to stock
>>>>>>>>> value increases, property and real estate. If you can't afford
>>>>>>>>> the tax you will have to liquidate assets to pay it. If the
>>>>>>>>> value declines later.. you don't get a refund.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is that what you had in mind.. or are you going to start making
>>>>>>>>> it unfair?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unrealized is already taxed, & if you were a homeowner, you'd
>>>>>>>> know that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No it's not. Property tax assessments are regularly far below
>>>>>>> market value and are paid whether the house increased in value or
>>>>>>> decreased.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't matter, because its not what you originally paid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, but property tax is a different thing than income tax.
>>>>
>>>> You're right:  its functionally a *wealth* tax, the same as the
>>>> proposal that you're so upset about, and as such, it represents the
>>>> precedent that you've tried to suggest that should never be crossed.
>>>
>>> Excellent.. then let's apply it to ALL.
>>
>> Gosh, its amazing how you've gone from "No, it doesn't exist" to
>> "Okay, then make everyone pay".
>
> Have to try to keep up with your goal post moves.

Translation:
Scout can't publicly admit that he was factually wrong.
So he tries YA diversion: a lame face-saving attempt.

-hh

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:ve3eug$1or30$3@dont-email.me...
> On 10/8/24 9:31 AM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>> news:ve1b33$1or30$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On 10/7/24 1:02 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:ve0t70$1olec$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>> On 10/7/24 9:57 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:vdp4j2$9f9b$2@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>> On 10/4/24 11:20 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:vdom3g$764f$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>>> On 10/3/24 11:15 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:vdf28c$2c3hr$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/30/24 1:08 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote in news:vddo52$1u779$4@dont-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/29/24 22:58, me too wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Make them pay their fair share!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when the populace is asked what percentage that "fair
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> share" is, it is usually under what they are already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not - not when a teacher, or nurse pays a greater
>>>>>>>>>>>>> percentage of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their income than a billionaire.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> They STILL pay less in taxes
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> True, but that's being a tad dishonest in avoiding the stated
>>>>>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That point was "fair share". Its metric was "percentage of
>>>>>>>>>>> income", which is very consistent with how this topic is
>>>>>>>>>>> discussed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ok.. a flat rate income tax all other taxes shall be revoked.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Everyone pays the same rate on all income whether a billionaire
>>>>>>>>>> or a beggar on the street.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> if unrealized income is taxed, then ALL unrealized income is
>>>>>>>>>> taxed. From cardboard box the beggar set up a home in, to stock
>>>>>>>>>> value increases, property and real estate. If you can't afford
>>>>>>>>>> the tax you will have to liquidate assets to pay it. If the value
>>>>>>>>>> declines later.. you don't get a refund.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is that what you had in mind.. or are you going to start making
>>>>>>>>>> it unfair?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unrealized is already taxed, & if you were a homeowner, you'd know
>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No it's not. Property tax assessments are regularly far below
>>>>>>>> market value and are paid whether the house increased in value or
>>>>>>>> decreased.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doesn't matter, because its not what you originally paid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep, but property tax is a different thing than income tax.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're right: its functionally a *wealth* tax, the same as the
>>>>> proposal that you're so upset about, and as such, it represents the
>>>>> precedent that you've tried to suggest that should never be crossed.
>>>>
>>>> Excellent.. then let's apply it to ALL.
>>>
>>> Gosh, its amazing how you've gone from "No, it doesn't exist" to "Okay,
>>> then make everyone pay".
>>
>> Have to try to keep up with your goal post moves.
>
> Translation:
> Scout can't publicly admit that he was factually wrong.
> So he tries YA diversion: a lame face-saving attempt.

What facts? Apples aren't the same as Oranges?

On 10/12/2024 10:10 AM, Michael A Terrell wrote:
> On 10/11/2024 3:55 PM, Skeeter-Shit "Lamey" Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell,
> convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, posted another
> content-free batch of lies:
>
>> In article <zuhOO.380447$WOde.34177@fx09.iad>,
>> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>>>
>>> On 10/11/2024 2:50 PM, Skeeter-Shit "Lamey" Jack-Off
>>> Shit-4-Braincell, convicted
>>> child molester and another fucking do-nothing, posted another
>>> content-free batch
>>> of lies:
>>>
>>>> In article <0mgOO.54439$MxR.16083@fx47.iad>,
>>>> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/11/2024 12:25 PM, Skeeter-Shit "Lamey" Jack-Off
>>>>> Shit-4-Braincell,
>>>>> convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, posted
>>>>> another
>>>>> content-free batch of lies:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <9weOO.24491$KDwf.7213@fx01.iad>,
>>>>>> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/11/2024 11:38 AM, Skeeter-Shit "Lamey" Jack-Off
>>>>>>> Shit-4-Braincell,
>>>>>>> convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, posted
>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>> content-free batch of lies:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <31eOO.7001$p7Z2.1060@fx02.iad>,
>>>>>>>> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2024 8:12 AM, Skeeter-Shit "Lamey" Jack-Off
>>>>>>>>> Shit-4-Braincell, convicted
>>>>>>>>> child molester and another fucking do-nothing, posted another
>>>>>>>>> content-free batch
>>>>>>>>> of lies:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In article <vebdrs$2m8ma$41@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>>> bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
>>>>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> news:vebcgr$3mmnq$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Skeeter" <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:6709076e$0$3827$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <vea5ju$2m8ma$37@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:6707f0d9$0$2760$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <ve8r2t$2m8ma$33@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ve8pq5$36m8h$2@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ve7fjj$2m8ma$21@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:67070463$1$3068679$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <ve6v2r$2m8ma$20@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ve6rqj$2pojq$2@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-09, Mittens Romney <robberbaron@invalid.ut>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Baxter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can only afford a slice of mouldy bread?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's life for real American citizens, but not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://x.com/Maga4liberty/status/1844029264854925400
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A $50 million FEMA facility for Illegals with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 800 bed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capacity is sitting EMPTY and is right down the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> road from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Asheville in Greensboro! Why isn't this place
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the people who actually need it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.wral.com/story/800-bed-facility-opens-for-chil
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d-mi gra nt s-i n-greensboro/21331536/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A new facility is open in Greensboro to house
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unaccompanied child migrants, but there is little
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information about how the center will operate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Influx Care Facilities (ICF) at the Greensboro
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Children's Center is now operational and ready to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> receive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> children. However, operators told WRAL News no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> children
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are currently scheduled to be placed there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 100-acre property at 4334 Hobbs Road is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surrounded by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fence with security guards posted at all entrances.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRAL News visited on Friday and saw very few people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coming and going.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ICF Greensboro Children's Center in northwest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greensboro was formerly the American Hebrew Academy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Government documents show the U.S. Department of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Health
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Human Services is leasing the property, paying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than $50 million for five years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heere is what migrants in NYC are receiving and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article is a few months old they are getting even more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these days.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-nyc-migrants-credit-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> debi t-c ar ds- prepaid- 240335300869>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this fills you with hate why?  You'd rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> die?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It blows away you morons saying they weren't getting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't answer the question.  Why does migrants
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assistance fill you with hate?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) They shouldn't even be here to get it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The only assistance they should be getting is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> immediate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deportation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Too embarrassed to answer the question? Why does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> migrants getting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assistance fill you with hate?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never said they shouldn't. But they damn sure shouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than our own people. Remember that? That was the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion. Stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to spin away.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still not answering the question: Why does migrants getting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assistance fill you with hate?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You avoided the topic. Why should they get more than our
>>>>>>>>>>>>> own people?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> He will never answer because otherwise it would destroy his
>>>>>>>>>>>> position
>>>>>>>>>>>> that hatred is involved.... well other than his own.
>>>>>>>>>>> They are NOT "getting more than our own people".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Recent video showed women complaining about "NO" emergency
>>>>>>>>>>> support while
>>>>>>>>>>> standing in front of relief tent holding bottles of water.
>>>>>>>>>>> Conservaturds
>>>>>>>>>>> just love to lie.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A bottle of water is not "relief"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is to someone who hasn't had any water to drink for 48
>>>>>>>>> hours, you fuckscum.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not enough.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Many local and private company's [sic]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *companies*, you illiterate fuckscum. You do not form plurals
>>>>>>>>> by adding
>>>>>>>>> apostrophe + 's'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No one but you cares.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All literate people care. That lets you out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No one I know does.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't know any literate people. Everyone you know is an illiterate
>>>>> cousin-fucker, just like you.
>>>
>>> <crickets>
>
> <*crickets*>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> are supplying that anyway.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Prove it, you illiterate fuckscum.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's been proven many times.
>>>>>>> It has never been *proved* (not "proven," you illiterate fuckscum).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has.
>>>>> It has not. No "company's" are supplying water or anything else to
>>>>> the redneck
>>>>> undeserving storm victims.
>>>>
>>>> Undeserving?
>>>
>>> What makes them deserving of taxpayer money?
>>
>> What make fence jumpers deserving of any at all?
>
> Deserving of what?