@AThousandYoung saidNo, capitalism is free flowing There is no restriction as you suggest, all have the same opportunities. Actually, the top 1% pay 50% of the taxes. Why don’t you guys tell us how it should be. Some her say stupidly that we we should be socialism. It does not work for god sake. If you think subsidies are bad, you don’t understand them. If there are 10 donut shops and subsidies are available, you think that the most successful ones should not get any of the subsidies. You libs want to punish people.
The police work for you. They imprison the poor to keep your property values high.
Tell us what you want . You Answer my question of yesterday… how much federal tax should a millionaire in California pay? Please. Is there not a debater among you.
@sonhouse saidYou must be writing to someone else about something that is in your maniacal craw. Whew.
So out of some 350 million folks here, you are saying 175 million are actually the working stock of the US and we would not even MISS the other 175 million if they were all to be say deported by ICE and that would make you SO HAPPY you would be creaming in your jeans. Kiss my ass you POS.
If I tried to respond I would lift two words from your post and respond that we do not want people who came here illegally to be here.
I otherwise know not of what you speak.
@AverageJoe1 saidIf by punishing the successful you mean "give fewer government subsidies to wealthy people*, then no, that's not what's currently happening. That's what I wish the policy was.
Helping the wealthy ones more??? Are you for real? In effect, punishing the successful? Are we going to have to listen to that tripe again? So if a farmer is not smart and making success of himself, we should
shore him up with govt money, but give nothing to the successful who flood our markets with produce?! Screw them, do not reward success!!
You are the w ...[text shortened]... list, I will prob have more access to stuff than I do now!
Helping the wealthy ones more!! Jesus
1 edit
@wildgrass saidI mention above, ten farmers, one is REAL wealthy because he was very enterprising, built more silos, invested in more tractors, more crops, worked harder than the others. The others were complacent, had too many kids, spent beyond their means. Are you with me?
If by punishing the successful you mean "give fewer government subsidies to wealthy people*, then no, that's not what's currently happening. That's what I wish the policy was.
So at subsidy time, his greater wealth has absolutely nothing to do with subsidies to farmers. He, with only one child and not spending much money, a real church-goer! , is of the same subsidy qualifications as are the other nine. He made better decisions, this is where his ‘punishment’ is felt. They say NO subsidy! He says. ‘Huh,,what did I do?’
To give only to the ones that need it? Socialism .
You tell us why he should get no subsidy?
You people are EAT UP with the money others make.
@AverageJoe1 said
No, capitalism is free flowing There is no restriction as you suggest, all have the same opportunities. Actually, the top 1% pay 50% of the taxes. Why don’t you guys tell us how it should be. Some her say stupidly that we we should be socialism. It does not work for god sake. If you think subsidies are bad, you don’t understand them. If there are 10 donut shops and s ...[text shortened]... uch federal tax should a millionaire in California pay? Please. Is there not a debater among you.
I asked Google AI to summarize the "tax structure of the 1950s":
The U.S. tax structure in the 1950s was characterized by a highly progressive income tax with a top statutory marginal rate as high as 91-92% for individuals, many brackets, and relatively high corporate taxes
@AThousandYoung saidOk, so in 2026, given your findings and present-day economy, what percentage of a millionaires income should be paid in fed income taxes. Granted, those 90% numbers are strong!I asked Google AI to summarize the "tax structure of the 1950s":
The U.S. tax structure in the 1950s was characterized by a highly progressive income tax with a top statutory marginal rate as high as 91-92% for individuals, many brackets, and relatively high corporate taxes
@AverageJoe1 saidHey assshole, YOU are the one saying fully half of Americans are on the doll. While at the same time you claim to be rich so you don't even KNOW what the rest of the country is going through which is why you are an anachronism, a person out of touch with reality JUST LIKE YOUR LORD MASTER Trump. His base used to be some 43% or so and now down to MAYBE 33% and YOU can't even do the math about that since you drank the Kool aid YEARS ago you obviously don't believe either the force of MILLIONS of protesters around the country protesting EVERY FKING DAY and OF COURSE since you drank the kool aid, you fully believe it is all a farce paid for by Soros.
You must be writing to someone else about something that is in your maniacal craw. Whew.
If I tried to respond I would lift two words from your post and respond that we do not want people who came here illegally to be here.
I otherwise know not of what you speak.
1 edit
@sonhouse saidProtesting what? I am keying on that one reference in your post. Could you not rant and please write a normal post about protest? What is everyone protesting. Are they protesting rich people? Many Americans go about their daily business but people are on the street, protesting…let’s say I am one first group, and you are in the 2nd. WHAT in gods name are you protesting? Your pension just had a hell of a year. ALL of good planning has had a hell of a year, People hanging at Pubs, had no year, relatively speaking.
Hey assshole, YOU are the one saying fully half of Americans are on the doll. While at the same time you claim to be rich so you don't even KNOW what the rest of the country is going through which is why you are an anachronism, a person out of touch with reality JUST LIKE YOUR LORD MASTER Trump. His base used to be some 43% or so and now down to MAYBE 33% and YOU can't even ...[text shortened]... Y and OF COURSE since you drank the kool aid, you fully believe it is all a farce paid for by Soros.
What protesting do you speak of?
Ps: too bad you make things personal. There is nothing personal about this, as you mentioned my financial status above. Why would you mention that? And why would you mention Trump? Oops, shoudn’t a said that!!
2 edits
@AverageJoe1 saidThe farmers who worked less hard or made poor decisions with their crop usage and are consequently unable to compete and be profitable should go outta business. Sell the land, buy a timeshare in hawaii. No one with millions in cash, equity and land value should get a welfare check.
I mention above, ten farmers, one is REAL wealthy because he was very enterprising, built more silos, invested in more tractors, more crops, worked harder than the others. The others were complacent, had too many kids, spent beyond their means. Are you with me?
So at subsidy time, his greater wealth has absolutely nothing to do with subsidies to farmers. He, wi ...[text shortened]...
You tell us why he should get no subsidy?
You people are EAT UP with the money others make.
@wildgrass saidYou are putting the emphasis of this problem on the situation of the farmer. I would be putting the emphasis of this problem on the status of the farm, and how to get it operating as a profit again. I am thinking about the economy and getting acres and acres of corn growing again. So yes, he needs to get out of the business since he does not have the ability, and the subsidies cannot even help him. He gets out of the business goes on his way. The farm is taken over by someone who knows how to run it.
The farmers who worked less hard or made poor decisions with their crop usage and are consequently unable to compete and be profitable should go outta business. Sell the land, buy a timeshare in hawaii. No one with millions in cash, equity and land value should get a welfare check.
This leaves me wondering what your plan is….you have a A businessman that might lose his business, a business which affects thousands and thousands of people. Please rewrite your post so you take the whole problem into consideration.
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidThe problem isn't the farmer. The problem is the government. The ever increasing number of government subsidies have left an entire industry, actually multiple industries, dependent on the government.
You are putting the emphasis of this problem on the situation of the farmer. I would be putting the emphasis of this problem on the status of the farm, and how to get it operating as a profit again. I am thinking about the economy and getting acres and acres of corn growing again. So yes, he needs to get out of the business since he does not have the ability, and the subs ...[text shortened]... and thousands of people. Please rewrite your post so you take the whole problem into consideration.
I don't know the ins and outs of the industry but they've decided this to be their occupation. They should be the ones to figure out how to make the land profitable, or sell it, whatever. Instead the government gives them free cheese. Tens of billions. You're cool with it.
@wildgrass saidThere needs to be an understand of subsidies. They are not what they seem to appear to you fellow, giving money to wealthy people. By the way, I would think you would want wealthy people running these tremendous businesses. In any event, subsidies aren’t designed to reward ‘needy’ ‘or ‘wealthy’ people”They’re tools governments used to shape outcomes that benefit society as a whole—stable food supplies, affordable housing, energy security, or domestic jobs.
The farmers who worked less hard or made poor decisions with their crop usage and are consequently unable to compete and be profitable should go outta business. Sell the land, buy a timeshare in hawaii. No one with millions in cash, equity and land value should get a welfare check.
Subsidies are not charity, they are investments. The fact that the recipient might be wealthy is not relevant to where the money is going, but rather to how it benefits society. Liberals zero
in on one wealthy guy and hate his guts and cannot see the forest for the trees.
@wildgrass saidBy ‘they’ decided it to be their occupation, do you mean the government or do you mean the wealthy?? don’t quite follow your post
The problem isn't the farmer. The problem is the government. The ever increasing number of government subsidies have left an entire industry, actually multiple industries, dependent on the government.
I don't know the ins and outs of the industry but they've decided this to be their occupation. They should be the ones to figure out how to make the land profitable, or sel ...[text shortened]... it, whatever. Instead the government gives them free cheese. Tens of billions. You're cool with it.
I totally disagree if you think the government should be running the farms. Please make that clear.
1 edit
@AverageJoe1
Sorry, how about a simple analogy. Let’s say I am sitting at a spa and a guy walks by and says “hey Jack just made $100,000 on a sale.” At the same moment, I get a call from my broker he says I just lost $100k!!!
Theoretically, what should happen in this case.?
And as to the 10 farmers, how do you distinguish which farmer is wealthy. Is that the one that has the biggest net worth what if the net worth is $50,000 more than the next guy. Who decides?