Originally posted by dadudemon
That's a lot of assumption you're doing. Don't you think? 🙂Again, this all goes back to the original concept: forced charity is not actually charity and is not "Christian."
Taxes are not charity.
It sounds as though you've never heard of trickle down economics...like...ever.And before you jump all over me: I don't support forced charity, [b]either
. 😉
Trickle down economics? Lol. Trickle down economics works if the reach decided to invest and spend here. You act as if you give the rich a tax break, they'll take their money and spend it all here. They have offshore and international accounts that pay more interest than here. There's a number of emerging markets with far more promising investment returns - this goes for both the individual and businesses.
I've heard of trickle down economics. Now when has it worked fruitfully for this country? During Regans term? What about Bush Sr's term? Bush Jrs term? Walker Bush cut taxes for the rich and where was this trickle down economics that the right love to spout?
Trickle down economics? LMAO. Nothing more than a b.s. economic theory preach by the rich to avoid paying taxes.
I appreciate you preaching to me. 😬Still, the top 10% still pay the large majority of our taxes. U still mad about their tax breaks?
Forced charity? Hell no. The rich pay more because they own more property and use more resources so they should pay up. They benefit more than the any of the other classes. Military defense. Who do you think would lose more if this country was invaded? The poor? Clean water, clear ocean, a safe food supply, well lighted streets, well stationed and ready police stations, etc. You think roads build and repave themselves? How does inter-state commerce profit if their were no roads?
What, you think it's NOT forced charity for anyone but the rich? Isn't that a strawman?
Where did I say it's forced charity for anyone other than the rich? You're the one claiming force charity. It ain't charity, it's called taxes - pay up. Even Jesus said, pay Caesar his taxes. My point is that Republicans would rather cut taxes for those who have before they helped the needy. That's the model of this party.
Still, the top 10% still pay the large majority of our taxes. U still mad about their tax breaks?
The top 10% pays the majority of our taxes but it's the other 90% that contribute to the majority of daily economic growth. The reason you don't tax the poor on income is because they need that money to spend on rent, utilities, and FOOD. But guess what, they still spend! 2/3 of US GDP comes from consumer spending. If you taxed the poor on income, how much money do you think they'll have left for consumption of goods produced by businesses and the rich?
This economy is run from the bottom up. It's the daily transactions by people at the bottom that sustain profits for businesses. Go to your burger joint, auto shops, or most businesses, they profit from those at the bottom the most. Who do you think buys the most goods and provides the man power needed move the businesses and this economy?
Originally posted by WhiteWitchKing
Taxes are not charity.Trickle down economics? Lol. Trickle down economics works if the reach decided to invest and spend here. You act as if you give the rich a tax break, they'll take their money and spend it all here. They have offshore and international accounts that pay more interest than here. There's a number of emerging markets with far more promising investment returns - this goes for both the individual and businesses.
I've heard of trickle down economics. Now when has it worked fruitfully for this country? During Regans term? What about Bush Sr's term? Bush Jrs term? Walker Bush cut taxes for the rich and where was this trickle down economics that the right love to spout?
Trickle down economics? LMAO. Nothing more than a b.s. economic theory preach by the rich to avoid paying taxes.Forced charity? Hell no. The rich pay more because they own more property and use more resources so they should pay up. They benefit more than the any of the other classes. Military defense. Who do you think would lose more if this country was invaded? The poor? Clean water, clear ocean, a safe food supply, well lighted streets, well stationed and ready police stations, etc. You think roads build and repave themselves? How does inter-state commerce profit if their were no roads?
Where did I say it's forced charity for anyone other than the rich? You're the one claiming force charity. It ain't charity, it's called taxes - pay up. Even Jesus said, pay Caesar his taxes. My point is that Republicans would rather cut taxes for those who have before they helped the needy. That's the model of this party.
I read lots of irrelevant words. "Taxes is not charity" has got to be the most ridiculous thing you stated since you tried to pass off taxes as charity for Christians.
Instead of preaching at me with multiple paragraphs every single section you quote, just accept that you used a shitty argument for why Christians should be gung-ho about forced charity. They shouldn't be. They should never be. Forced charity has never, is not, and will never be Christian: it's the exact opposite.
Deal with it and move on.
Originally posted by WhiteWitchKing
The top 10% pays the majority of our taxes but it's the other 90% that contribute to the majority of daily economic growth. The reason you don't tax the poor on income is because they need that money to spend on rent, utilities, and FOOD. But guess what, they still spend! 2/3 of US GDP comes from consumer spending. If you taxed the poor on income, how much money do you think they'll have left for consumption of goods produced by businesses and the rich?This economy is run from the bottom up. It's the daily transactions by people at the bottom that sustain profits for businesses. Go to your burger joint, auto shops, or most businesses, they profit from those at the bottom the most. Who do you think buys the most goods and provides the man power needed move the businesses and this economy?
So you missed the implied that both forced charity and trickle down economics are not my cup of tea, eh? Figures.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Oh, cause it was really funny when you said they did.
did hating Jews for the specific fact that they were Jews really predate Christianity?
like, I know the Old Testament talks about Jews as slaves, and so forth, but like, isn't that more mythology/historical practice, rather than a specific ideology of "jews are bad because they are jews"?
I honestly don't actually know the answer to this...