Patriot Mobile

Wealth redistribution

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Sam7sf

    TGT Addict
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Apr 13, 2018
    12,461
    96
    Texas
    D3D76C3A-CD68-4DC6-B7D6-4B5432389814.jpeg
    DK Firearms
     

    Attachments

    • D3D76C3A-CD68-4DC6-B7D6-4B5432389814.jpeg
      D3D76C3A-CD68-4DC6-B7D6-4B5432389814.jpeg
      24.7 KB · Views: 137

    Raz

    New Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 5, 2018
    32
    11
    Austin
    Typical liberal bullshit.
    You can bet it will not be HIS money that gets taken.
    It’ll be YOUR money that gets taken.

    Libtards never pay for a damn thing.

    Basically if someone takes responsibility and saves money then they are screwed.
     

    TheMailMan

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Dec 3, 2015
    3,428
    96
    North of Kaufman

    Mowingmaniac 24/7

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 7, 2015
    9,350
    96
    No, I don't have to get an education or learn a trade, just give me.

    That's what I call wealth stealing, I mean redist, wait how you say that...?
     

    BillFairbanks

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 8, 2017
    1,626
    96
    Johnson County, TX

    Bill Gates is buying influence and a legacy. He’s using his money to shape the world as he sees fit. Which is his right. However, I think it’s motivated by vanity and a lust for power.

    I’m not saying I wouldn’t do the same thing in his position. However, the causes I would support would probably be very different.

    I’m more impressed with business leaders who treat their employees well.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    HKShooter65

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    I'll get lambasted and harangued for thus but....

    Under the present graduated income tax law if you personally make $10 million dollars in one year you get to keep about $6 million.
    If one makes $30 million in a year they get to bank around $18 million.

    A hypothetical proposal has been made by the Dems (AOC) to raise taxes only on your $11th million and up, such that the individual making $30,000,000.00 would get to keep only $12 million (only!!!).
    Your first $10,000,000.00 would be unaffected.

    This would not apply to corporations.
    It would not tax or discourage growth or reinvestment as has been alleged.

    Now in my fantasy......
    Were I to personally make $30 million in one year I would say "This country has been good to me" and be pretty happy with my $12 million net after taxes!!!

    Somewhere we need to tax more and/or spend less and cease ignoring the grisly deficit.

    Painting that as "redistribution" is wrong. Our USA needs the money for roads and infrastructure and military and a border wall, eh??

    Where to start???
     
    Last edited:

    diesel1959

    por vida
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 7, 2013
    3,837
    96
    Houston & BFE
    I'll get lambasted and harangued for thus but....

    Under the present graduated income tax law if you personally make $10 million dollars in one year you get to keep about $6 million.
    If one makes $30 million in a year they get to bank around $18 million.

    A hypothetical proposal has been made by the Dems (AOC) to raise taxes only on your $11th million and up, such that the individual making $30,000,000.00 would get to keep only $12 million (only!!!).
    Your first $10,000,000.00 would be unaffected.

    This would not apply to corporations.
    It would not tax or discourage growth or reinvestment as has been alleged.

    Now in my fantasy......
    Were I to personally make $30 million in one year I would say "This country has been good to me" and be pretty happy with my $12 million net after taxes!!!

    Somewhere we need to tax more and/or spend less and cease ignoring the grisly deficit.

    Painting that as "redistribution" is wrong. Our USA needs the money for roads and infrastructure and military and a border wall, eh??

    Where to start???
    Respectfully, feel free to give away your own "speculative earnings"; however, leave your hands off my "speculative earnings" and out of my actual wallet. :cheers:
     

    HKShooter65

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Respectfully, feel free to give away your own "speculative earnings"; however, leave your hands off my "speculative earnings" and out of my actual wallet. :cheers:

    OK.
    Though it's not about "my hands" and it's not giving it away. It's about funding our great nation.
    I'm vexed. How can we brag about how marvelous we and our nation are without wanting to fairly pay our expenditures.

    Our top-earner income tax rate has been higher that 70% in the past....when we needed money to pay for WWII. It was 94% over $0.2 million.
    https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx

    We need more money now or we need to spend a great deal less. No-one likes either, though.
     
    Last edited:

    toddnjoyce

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 27, 2017
    19,259
    96
    Boerne
    A hypothetical proposal ...?

    Hypothetically speaking, until there are details on the actual implementation, and not just a sound bite, there’s nothing really to discuss.

    Somewhere we need to tax more and/or spend less and cease ignoring the grisly deficit.

    Painting that as "redistribution" is wrong.


    That 44% of eligible tax payers will not pay the employee side of income tax or get refunded 100% of tax withheld, yet will still participate in receiving federal goods, services, and benefits is wealth redistribution.
     

    Darkpriest667

    Actually Attends
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Jan 13, 2017
    4,486
    96
    Jarrell TX, United States
    I actually believe in localized wealth redistribution!!! YES I DO. In fact, I think everyone on the board needs to redistribute JUST 10 Dollars to me and I will purchase a new gun that everyone will be allowed to enjoy.
     

    diesel1959

    por vida
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 7, 2013
    3,837
    96
    Houston & BFE
    OK.
    Though it's not about "my hands" and it's not giving it away. It's about funding our great nation.
    I'm vexed. How can we brag about how marvelous we and our nation are without wanting to fairly pay our expenditures.

    Our top-earner income tax rate has been higher that 70% in the past....when we needed money to pay for WWII. It was 94% over $0.2 million.
    https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx

    We need more money now or we need to spend a great deal less. No-one likes either, though.
    Our nation is not great because we give shîttonnes of money in taxes to the federal government. Our nation is great because of the actions of those who have gone before--laying the foundation, crafting our Constitution, serving at all levels, and respecting the beautiful framework that has been built--and dying for its preservation when that has been required.

    And yes, we need (at the federal level) to spend a great deal less. A good start would be the elimination of the US Dept. of Education, elimination of fed.gov-supported housing projects, walking back certain entitlement programs, and permitting folks to manage their own SocSecurity investments. If it were up to me, Social Security would never exist, as I believe the Helvering decision was horribly decided in 1937, under the threat of FDR carrying out his "court packing" plan. Yep, Cardozo blew it, in my opinion.

    Most of the social welfare programs that exist should ONLY exist--if at all--at the state and local level and NOT at the federal level. Promoting the general welfare does NOT equate to providing individual welfare . . . it means taking actions that promote EVERYONE'S welfare. As an example--the fed.gov using money to support the American Cancer Society to cure cancer as opposed to the fed.gov creating/operating the Centers for Disease Control. The former would not be appropriate, as you can't catch cancer from another person, whereas the latter would be appropriate as it deals with contagion and communicable diseases. I firmly believe in keeping the fed.gov within the metes & bounds laid out for it as enumerated powers in Art. I., Sec. 8. The abuse of the Commerce Clause and disregard for Amendment X are both never-ending cesspool of fed.gov power grabs and mission creep.
     
    Last edited:

    HKShooter65

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Our nation is not great because we give shîttonnes of money in taxes to the federal government. Our nation is great because of the actions of those who have gone before--laying the foundation, crafting our Constitution, serving at all levels, and respecting the beautiful framework that has been built--and dying for its preservation when that has been required.

    And yes, we need (at the federal level) to spend a great deal less. A good start would be the elimination of the US Dept. of Education, elimination of fed.gov-supported housing projects, walking back certain entitlement programs, and permitting folks to manage their own SocSecurity investments. If it were up to me, Social Security would never exist, as I believe the Helvering decision was horribly decided in 1937, under the threat of FDR carrying out his "court packing" plan. Yep, Cardozo blew it, in my opinion.

    Most of the social welfare programs that exist should ONLY exist--if at all--at the state and local level and NOT at the federal level. Promoting the general welfare does NOT equate to providing individual welfare . . . it means taking actions that promote EVERYONE'S welfare. As an example--the fed.gov using money to support the American Cancer Society to cure cancer as opposed to the fed.gov creating/operating the Centers for Disease Control. The former would not be appropriate, as you can't catch cancer from another person, whereas the latter would be appropriate as it deals with contagion and communicable diseases. I firmly believe in keeping the fed.gov within the metes & bounds laid out for it as enumerated powers in Art. I., Sec. 8. The abuse of the Commerce Clause and disregard for Amendment X are both never-ending cesspool of fed.gov power grabs and mission creep.

    I pretty much agree with you.

    Though I suspect that migrating those federal expenditures to a plethora of state-run agencies would necessitate a Texas state income tax with no compensatory decrease in federal taxes.
    A painful thing to mull over?

    Careful what you wish for!

    Oh, an exception BTW, cervical cancer is pretty much 100% infectious person-to-person with years of latency I'm told.
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom