What, no Joe Manchin thread?

[Biff Tannen 45226]

2 minutes ago, MonkeyCigarette said:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/20/investing/elon-musk-11-billion-dollars-taxes/index.html

Musk received 25.5 million split-adjusted options in 2012, and had 22.9 million of those options vest over subsequent years as Tesla hit certain operational and financial targets. But he didn't have to pay taxes on those options until he used them to buy shares.

Since that block of options is due to expire in August 2022, Musk finally started the process of turning them into shares of stock in early November. And he documented those trades in SEC filings, as company insiders are required to do.

When he exercises the options, the value of the newly purchased shares are taxed as income — a 40.8% rate for someone in Musk's tax bracket.

Good.  It should be 90% like in the 50s.

[Goofyboy 3013]

All of it. Everything over $1 billion.

[fattyflattie 4633]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Good.  It should be 90% like in the 50s.

I thought we didn’t like America in the 50’s? 

[cactusflinthead 27243]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I thought we didn’t like America in the 50’s? 

Tax rates were ok.

Segregation not so much. Lynching even less so.

 

[cactusflinthead 27243]

12 minutes ago, MonkeyCigarette said:

Since that block of options is due to expire in August 2022, Musk finally started the process of turning them into shares of stock in early November. And he documented those trades in SEC filings, as company insiders are required to do

There it is. Use it or lose it. Cry me a river.

[TwiceHorn 30851]

23 hours ago, pyrohornIII said:

This.  In spite of how it works and the backside of it, it was a good thing.  And now it's potentially scrubbed.  And it affects poor on both sides.    It's just going to muddy the water even more, but in the end it will be Manchin's head on a platter.  

If they don't vote, then why are we seeing so many voter suppression laws and gerrymandering?  Maybe in spite of decades of poll taxes and literacy tests, American minorities still believe their vote can matter, and want to cast them.  Scares the hell out of white supremacists like you, doesn't it?  

I guess government subsidies isn't considered interference.  Only regulations fall under that heading.

 

And it seems Manchin might have got his feelings hurt.  There's an audio clip of this out there, and it sure comes across as someone more interested in looking tough than actually doing his job:

 

Manchin confidant says Biden put his FAMILY at risk with 'personalized' attacks as it's revealed White House ignored his request to be left out of statement where it named him three times

• Joe Manchin tore into White House staff and his fellow Democrats, blaming them for his decision to vote 'no' on Biden's signature Build Back Better bill
• He accused Democrats of badgering him and beating 'the living crap' out of him as they tried to get his vote 
• He also said White House staff know the 'real reason' he's a no on the legislation
• 'It's not the president,' Manchin said. 'It's the staff. And they drove some things and they put some things out that were absolutely inexcusable. They know'
• 'They can't just beat the living crap out of people and think they'll be submissive,' he said of Democratic leadership 

Article gets into some good depth about the back and forth during negotiations and afterwards.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10330497/Manchin-confidant-says-Biden-FAMILY-risk-personalized-statements.html

Joe is lucky LBJ isn't in the White House.  

He probably would have gotten the crap beat out of him, and fed a cockmeat sandwich.  Apparently a rather large one.

[Biff Tannen 45226]

10 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I thought we didn’t like America in the 50’s? 

Well your side does. Except the tax part, apparently. 

[fattyflattie 4633]

50 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

Tax rates were ok.

Segregation not so much. Lynching even less so.

 

I agree about the segregation and lynching. Still amazes me the want to punish our best and brightest to support the ones who can’t even find a way to pay in themselves.  I’d wager Musk will probably pay more than the lifetime cumulative of everyone who’s ever been a welfare recipient. 1 man.  More than the cumulative contributions of millions of people. And we’ll just gloss over that he’s probably done more for the “climate crisis” than any other person. 

[Gil Bang 25689]

7 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

He's also 74 years old, so maybe he is going to retire and doesn't give a shit.

He won't retire in WV.  No fucking way.  

[hobbes2702 12536]

29 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I agree about the segregation and lynching. Still amazes me the want to punish our best and brightest to support the ones who can’t even find a way to pay in themselves.  I’d wager Musk will probably pay more than the lifetime cumulative of everyone who’s ever been a welfare recipient. 1 man.  More than the cumulative contributions of millions of people. And we’ll just gloss over that he’s probably done more for the “climate crisis” than any other person. 

“Punish”. Fucking lulz.

[wildcat09 28563]

52 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I agree about the segregation and lynching. Still amazes me the want to punish our best and brightest to support the ones who can’t even find a way to pay in themselves.  I’d wager Musk will probably pay more than the lifetime cumulative of everyone who’s ever been a welfare recipient. 1 man.  More than the cumulative contributions of millions of people. And we’ll just gloss over that he’s probably done more for the “climate crisis” than any other person. 

Musk’s promotion of crypto might end up doing more environmental damage than he prevents with Tesla.

[Bullneck 18779]

2 hours ago, MonkeyCigarette said:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/20/investing/elon-musk-11-billion-dollars-taxes/index.html

Musk received 25.5 million split-adjusted options in 2012, and had 22.9 million of those options vest over subsequent years as Tesla hit certain operational and financial targets. But he didn't have to pay taxes on those options until he used them to buy shares.

Since that block of options is due to expire in August 2022, Musk finally started the process of turning them into shares of stock in early November. And he documented those trades in SEC filings, as company insiders are required to do.

When he exercises the options, the value of the newly purchased shares are taxed as income — a 40.8% rate for someone in Musk's tax bracket.

Hard for me to believe he won't find a way to shelter some of that.  But as like other posters said, his tax rate should be much higher.  

[Bullneck 18779]

12 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Musk’s promotion of crypto will certainly end up doing more environmental damage than he prevents with Tesla.

 

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

And we’ll just gloss over that he’s probably done more for the “climate crisis” than any other person. 

Climate denier

Edited December 22, 2021 by Bullneck

[Bullneck 18779]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

I agree about the segregation and lynching. Still amazes me the want to punish our best and brightest to support the ones who can’t even find a way to pay in themselves.  I’d wager Musk will probably pay more than the lifetime cumulative of everyone who’s ever been a welfare recipient. 1 man.  More than the cumulative contributions of millions of people. And we’ll just gloss over that he’s probably done more for the “climate crisis” than any other person. 

Still beating that "bootstraps" drum, eh.  

He's never done any public service, so he can pay.  You know you can't take it with your, right?

 

Edited December 22, 2021 by Bullneck

[fattyflattie 4633]

11 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Musk’s promotion of crypto might end up doing more environmental damage than he prevents with Tesla.

Maybe so. Him being back and forth on it has swung it a bunch, too.  Still, we are absolutely no where near where we are with EV without Tesla. He made it (somewhat) mainstream. 

[JimmyJames 12267]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

I agree about the segregation and lynching. Still amazes me the want to punish our best and brightest to support the ones who can’t even find a way to pay in themselves.  I’d wager Musk will probably pay more than the lifetime cumulative of everyone who’s ever been a welfare recipient. 1 man.  More than the cumulative contributions of millions of people. And we’ll just gloss over that he’s probably done more for the “climate crisis” than any other person. 

I nominate this for dumbest post of the year. Show me another one dumber.

Because most of our “best and brightest are rich spoiled trust fund assholes like trump who inherited it and all they do is fuck things up to try to benefit themselves. How old are you?

“Best and brightest.” Good one. So fucking dumb.

[fattyflattie 4633]

2 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

Still beating that "bootstraps" drum, eh.  

He's never done any public service, so he can pay.  You know you can't take it with your, right?

I would argue he’s done the public a major service. And lol if public service is your bar, there’s going to a long list that don’t qualify.
 

You know you can leave it to your heirs, right?  Or light it on fire, or do whatever the fuck you want with it. He earned it. 

[JimmyJames 12267]

I mean we can’t all grow up owning African emerald mines.

[Bullneck 18779]

10 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I would argue he’s done the public a major service. And lol if public service is your bar, there’s going to a long list that don’t qualify.
 

You know you can leave it to your heirs, right?  Or light it on fire, or do whatever the fuck you want with it. He earned it. 

The America you want is a bunch of individuals who want to look good on paper so their agent can get them a better contract.

You don't believe this is a team effort.  

[fattyflattie 4633]

8 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

You don't believe this is a team effort.  

You’d be wrong about that. I just want everyone to pay. You think he should pay XX% and I’m fine with that, as long as it’s the same as everyone else pays.  We should all contribute to income/wealth tax. 

[workswithseed 2012]

37 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Maybe so. Him being back and forth on it has swung it a bunch, too.  Still, we are absolutely no where near where we are with EV without Tesla. He made it (somewhat) mainstream. 

 

Read on from here. @Nice Guy Eddie pretty much lays out.

[Willfully Horn 7892]

3 hours ago, MonkeyCigarette said:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/20/investing/elon-musk-11-billion-dollars-taxes/index.html

Musk received 25.5 million split-adjusted options in 2012, and had 22.9 million of those options vest over subsequent years as Tesla hit certain operational and financial targets. But he didn't have to pay taxes on those options until he used them to buy shares.

Since that block of options is due to expire in August 2022, Musk finally started the process of turning them into shares of stock in early November. And he documented those trades in SEC filings, as company insiders are required to do.

When he exercises the options, the value of the newly purchased shares are taxed as income — a 40.8% rate for someone in Musk's tax bracket.

Pos rep for the info.

Here are the upper end tax rates:

 

Increasing tax rates make sense, to me, for higher incomes. I, too, favor higher tax rates for folks who make hundreds of millions, and especially, billions. 
 

One reason is the multiplier effect of money in the hands of folks who spend it quickly and diversely. Another is the gap between the wealthy and the poor, and the destabilizing effect that has on society. 
 

I am reminded of the saying that there are two types of people: those who think they could have enough money, and those with money. I recognize, and reject, the idea that one person is entitled to accrue billions.

With a narrow focus: Musk is in debt to the people who make and buy his cars, the entities that design, build, and maintain the roads they travel, the electric grids that fuel them. MORESO than the average Joe. By many orders of magnitude. 
 

Society pays a lost opportunity cost for his success, as well. The cost of lithium comes to mind. And the delay in pressure for efficient mass transportation.

Edited December 22, 2021 by Willfully Horn
Plural

[Bullneck 18779]

13 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

 

Read on from here. @Nice Guy Eddie pretty much lays out.

So I clicked your link and guess what?  Here's your proof:

On 12/5/2021 at 2:45 PM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

And these myths have been disproven again and again.  

Yup, that's it.  Good enough for you, Workswithseed.  Solid evidence.  

If you want a lesson in "how to post" take a look at WillfullHorn, right above here.  

 

 

 

Edited December 22, 2021 by Bullneck

[Bullneck 18779]

18 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

 

Read on from here. @Nice Guy Eddie pretty much lays out.

Quote

Does Bitcoin use a lot of energy?

 

Estimated electricity consumption (terawatt-hours, annualized). ... The Bitcoin network uses about the same amount of electricity as Washington State does yearly … more than a third of what residential cooling in the United States uses up … and more than seven times as much electricity as all of Google's global operations.Sep 3, 2021

 

Edited December 22, 2021 by Bullneck

[Biff Tannen 45226]

2 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

He won't retire in WV.  No fucking way.  

I mean, I wouldn't either, though there are some pretty places there.  Our newest national park even.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33723]

Lost in the above bullshittery, I don't see how he can shirk this kind of pressure.
 

 

[Biff Tannen 45226]

33 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

You’d be wrong about that. I just want everyone to pay. You think he should pay XX% and I’m fine with that, as long as it’s the same as everyone else pays.  We should all contribute to income/wealth tax. 

I can't.  I just can't.  We have gone over this ad nauseum for what seems like millions of years.  The poor pay taxes.  They pay income taxes.  Taxes are taken out of every paycheck.  When they get their refund, it doesn't equal the amount they paid in.  They don't end up net positive.  

[Bullneck 18779]

7 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Lost in the above bullshittery, I don't see how he can shirk this kind of pressure.
 

Nah, he's taken the money from ExxonMobil, et al.  If he doesn't vote as instructed the boys are gonna kneecap him.  He's a good boy and knows what to do. Be defiant in the press.  Be true to his roots.  That Maserati ain't going to pay for itself.  

Joe, let me tell you how the cow at the cabbage.

Edited December 22, 2021 by Bullneck

[JimmyJames 12267]

41 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

You’d be wrong about that. I just want everyone to pay. You think he should pay XX% and I’m fine with that, as long as it’s the same as everyone else pays.  We should all contribute to income/wealth tax. 

Still banging this dumbass drum I see. Payroll taxes. How do they work?

Or maybe you want 80 year olds, cripples and infants to pay up their fair share to society. That is EVERYONE. Is it not?

I ask again, how old are you and why are you so dumb?

[JimmyJames 12267]

8 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I can't.  I just can't.  We have gone over this ad nauseum for what seems like millions of years.  The poor pay taxes.  They pay income taxes.  Taxes are taken out of every paycheck.  When they get their refund, it doesn't equal the amount they paid in.  They don't end up net positive.  

It really is maddening how stupid some people are like him when it comes to this issue. 

[Dahobbs 17255]

2 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

I agree about the segregation and lynching. Still amazes me the want to punish our best and brightest to support the ones who can’t even find a way to pay in themselves.  I’d wager Musk will probably pay more than the lifetime cumulative of everyone who’s ever been a welfare recipient. 1 man.  More than the cumulative contributions of millions of people. And we’ll just gloss over that he’s probably done more for the “climate crisis” than any other person. 

I am a big fan of what Musk has led the way in building. But he isn't our best or our brightest. He has been handed a good bit of luck along with his skill. That doesn't make him better than the mom of three who barely makes it by. And it doesn't mean she deserves your scorn. It would be really nice if everyone recognized that the whole fucking point of society is to make things better for everyone, not just for some of us. The key is finding the right way to get to best possible outcome. I think distributing resources just a tad more fairly so that no one goes without while others sock away billions would be a clear improvement. I don't want to punish the successful or eliminate the incentives for success. But I do want the benefits of that success to be felt more broadly. 

P.S. global warming is real as will be its effects for generations to come.

Edited December 22, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Bullneck 18779]

Quote

America’s largest coal mining union that represents West Virginia coal miners is urging Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to “revisit his opposition” to the Build Back Better Act.

The United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) listed out the ways the historic piece of legislation that Manchin opposes would benefit the coal miners he was elected to represent.

 

“The bill includes language that would extend the current fee paid by coal companies to fund benefits received by victims of coal workers’ pneumoconiosis, or Black Lung,” UMWA President Cecil Roberts said in a statement Monday. “But now that fee will be cut in half, further shifting the burden of paying these benefits away from the coal companies and on to taxpayers.”

The $2 trillion bill would also “provide tax incentives to encourage manufacturers to build facilities in the coalfields that would employ thousands of coal miners who have lost their jobs,” the statement said. The bill would also provide stronger union protections for workers, Roberts said.

“But now there is no path forward for millions of workers to exercise their rights at work,” he added.

The collision of reality v. lobbyist payoffs comes to Manchin's house.

[Goofyboy 3013]

Ok, fine, the winners of life get to keep $5 billion. The rest is handed over and invested in keeping the country fed, able to go to a doctor and not have to worry about going bankrupt, etc.

I do not give a shit about billionaires. They do not give a shit about us other than how hard can we work for them.

[Bullneck 18779]

2 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

Ok, fine, the winners of life get to keep $5 billion. The rest is handed over and invested in keeping the country fed, able to go to a doctor and not have to worry about going bankrupt, etc.

I do not give a shit about billionaires. They do not give a shit about us other than how hard can we work for them.

I used to work for a guy who used to say every despot was allowed to kill 10,000 of his own people.  When he got to 10,001 a CIA drone would blast him.  

[MonkeyCigarette 143]

1 hour ago, Willfully Horn said:

Pos rep for the info.

Here are the upper end tax rates:

 

Increasing tax rates make sense, to me, for higher incomes. I, too, favor higher tax rates for folks who make hundreds of millions, and especially, billions. 
 

One reason is the multiplier effect of money in the hands of folks who spend it quickly and diversely. Another is the gap between the wealthy and the poor, and the destabilizing effect that has on society. 
 

I am reminded of the saying that there are two types of people: those who think they could have enough money, and those with money. I recognize, and reject, the idea that one person is entitled to accrue billions.

With a narrow focus: Musk is in debt to the people who make and buy his cars, the entities that design, build, and maintain the roads they travel, the electric grids that fuel them. MORESO than the average Joe. By many orders of magnitude. 
 

Society pays a lost opportunity cost for his success, as well. The cost of lithium comes to mind. And the delay in pressure for efficient mass transportation.

You and I fundamentally disagree about almost everything, but I appreciate this response.

[Willfully Horn 7892]

52 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I can't.  I just can't.  We have gone over this ad nauseum for what seems like millions of years.  The poor pay taxes.  They pay income taxes.  Taxes are taken out of every paycheck.  When they get their refund, it doesn't equal the amount they paid in.  They don't end up net positive.  

There was a time when the following wisdom held more sway in the good ol’ USA:

 

Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”^(C)

[wildcat09 28563]

Fatty's naked contempt for poor people is one of the grosser traits of any poster on this site. Possibly only exceeded by slorch's open desire to murder people for turning around in his driveway.

[Bullneck 18779]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Joe is lucky LBJ isn't in the White House.  

He probably would have gotten the crap beat out of him, and fed a cockmeat sandwich.  Apparently a rather large one.

 

LBJ was famous for his powers of persuasion, dispensing them with what became known as "the Johnson Treatment." He used his imposing physical size and intimidating personality to emphasize his point. In this call, LBJ is in full "Johnson Treatment" mode with Representative Albert Thomas (Democrat, Texas) on the receiving end.

In this call, with characteristic bluntness, President Johnson berates Representative Albert Thomas (Democrat, Texas) over a clause forcing the President to publicly report to Congress on wheat sales to the Soviet Union and argues that it would resonate poorly with the American public.

NB: This clips contains language that may not be suitable for children.

Date:  Dec 20, 1963
Time:  20:36
Participants:  Lyndon Johnson, Albert Thomas

 

(President Johnson): I don't want to debate it with you, my friend. I love you. But you know goddamn well that when I ask them not to make me notify them publicly so it wouldn't be in the papers...

(Albert Thomas): Well...

(President Johnson): You know I know what I'm doing.

(Albert Thomas): Frankly, I-

(President Johnson): You know, and we screwed it up. This damn fool, this damn fool Humphrey put that paragraph on. I told Albert to get it off, cut it off.

(Albert Thomas): I think it's your partners over on the Senate side. Now, old Otto played ball. He told me he was going to do his damnedest to take it out. Have you got the language in front of you?

(President Johnson): Yes, sir, I've got it in front of me. And it oughtn't to be in there. It's just a damn-

(Albert Thomas): "Agency or national in connection with the purchase..."

(President Johnson): That's right.

(Albert Thomas): "Or national except when the President determines that such guarantees would be in the national interest."

(President Johnson): That's all right, period.

(Albert Thomas): "And reports each"-

(President Johnson): No! No! Period after "national interest."

(Albert Thomas): I know, but read your language further. "And reports each determination."

(President Johnson): Why should I want to report to everybody that I screwed a girl? You screwed one last night, but you don't want to report it.

(Albert Thomas): I wish I did.

(President Johnson): Well, you know what I'm talking about. That made it come home to you, didn't it?

(Albert Thomas): Well, it ain't going to-

(President Johnson): Well, don't you think I'm a damned idiot, now.

(Albert Thomas): Now, well, now, now, now. Of course not. But I don't think it's going to hamstring you a bit on-

(President Johnson): It doesn't hamstring me. It just publicizes that I'm pro-Russian right when Nixon's running against me. That's all it does.

(Albert Thomas): Well, he ain't going to run, because he ain't going to... he ain't going to get...

(President Johnson): Well, listen, Albert. Listen, Albert. You and I are buddies now. You understand politics, and I do, too. And I'm telling you that we're working with the Republicans up there 100 percent.

(Albert Thomas): Well, I'm on your side.

(President Johnson): Well, all right. You just don't ever agree that's a good clause, because you know goddamn well it ain't. Don't try to shit me, 'cause I know better.

(Albert Thomas): Here's the speaker. Well, I've worked with it in the...

(President Johnson): Yeah, you've worked with it, but you've been working with it under Republican presidents, not under Democrats. When a Democratic president has to report that he makes a determination that it's in his interest to go with Russia, it's not good when you're running for office. Now, you know that, don't you?

Edited December 22, 2021 by Bullneck

[fattyflattie 4633]

37 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

That doesn't make him better than the mom of three who barely makes it by.

That’s highly debatable. It’s more likely than not that the choices each of them made forged their paths. 
 

39 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't want to punish the successful or eliminate the incentives for success.

Please define further. Because it sounds like you do. If he’s no better than the mother of 3 (your words),then why should he owe a higher % of his income? Mother of 3 was/is more than welcome to start start several revolutionary companies, and to reap the spoils. 
 

42 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

But he isn't our best or our brightest.

Yet he figured out how to become the richest man on the planet. He’s accomplished what every single person in the world wants to. I’m sure the mother of 3 who’s struggling to eat would best him in a spelling contest. 
 

 

[Brew 2917]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

I can't.  I just can't.  We have gone over this ad nauseum for what seems like millions of years.  The poor pay taxes.  They pay income taxes.  Taxes are taken out of every paycheck.  When they get their refund, it doesn't equal the amount they paid in.  They don't end up net positive.  

I’m not getting into the tax rate debate, but this isn’t true. Refundable credits like the child tax credits put those below a certain income level into a net positive scenario from an income tax standpoint. If you’re also including social security taxes then the income level drops but you can still flip to a net positive from refundable credits. If you are talking really poor, then they can flip net positive even dragging sales tax into the equation because of refundable credits. At a certain level they shouldn’t be paying anything, but they can also receive as well.

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

That’s highly debatable. It’s more likely than not that the choices each of them made forged their paths. 
 

Please define further. Because it sounds like you do. If he’s no better than the mother of 3 (your words),then why should he owe a higher % of his income? Mother of 3 was/is more than welcome to start start several revolutionary companies, and to reap the spoils. 
 

Yet he figured out how to become the richest man on the planet. He’s accomplished what every single person in the world wants to. I’m sure the mother of 3 who’s struggling to eat would best him in a spelling contest. 
 

 

The mother of three shouldn’t have kids unless she can afford them. It’s immoral to have kids you cannot afford to take care of.  It’s immoral to expect others to pay for the care of offspring you chose to have. This isn’t hard for anyone with any common sense.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

6 minutes ago, Brew said:

I’m not getting into the tax rate debate, but this isn’t true. Refundable credits like the child tax credits put those below a certain income level into a net positive scenario from an income tax standpoint. If you’re also including social security taxes then the income level drops but you can still flip to a net positive from refundable credits. If you are talking really poor, then they can flip net positive even dragging sales tax into the equation because of refundable credits. At a certain level they shouldn’t be paying anything, but they can also receive as well.

 

The bottom 60 percent of taxpayers are net recipients when you factor in the government transfers to them   The next 20 percent pay almost nothing net.  Yet we have an entire political party built on telling that 80 percent who pay nothing or are net takers that the top 20 percent who pay for everything are greedy takers.  It’s impressive gaslighting. 

[Willfully Horn 7892]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

The mother of three shouldn’t have kids unless she can afford them. It’s immoral to have kids you cannot afford to take care of.  It’s immoral to expect others to pay for the care of offspring you chose to have. This isn’t hard for anyone with any common sense.  

Birth control isn’t 100% effective. Abortion is all but illegal in the State of Texas.. 
 

Is it your position that sex is immoral for the poor with children?

Edited December 22, 2021 by Willfully Horn
Spellfucked

[Dahobbs 17255]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

That’s highly debatable. It’s more likely than not that the choices each of them made forged their paths. 
 

Please define further. Because it sounds like you do. If he’s no better than the mother of 3 (your words),then why should he owe a higher % of his income? Mother of 3 was/is more than welcome to start start several revolutionary companies, and to reap the spoils. 
 

Yet he figured out how to become the richest man on the planet. He’s accomplished what every single person in the world wants to. I’m sure the mother of 3 who’s struggling to eat would best him in a spelling contest. 
 

 

I'm trying to imagine how you could be more wrong about everything. Congrats, I don't think I can do it. 

First, please lookup survivorship bias:

Second, I want him to pay more in taxes (both as an absolute and as a percentage) because he has benefited from society to a greater extent. It isnt because I think he is better or worse than her. Just that he has gotten more out of society than her. I'm not saying everything needs to be even. I don't think that is the ideal distribution to ensure maximal good. But it needs to be a lot closer than it is. 

Third, I'm not sure what a spelling contest has to do with anything. It sounds like you have a misperception about those at both the bottom and the top of the economic ladder.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Birth control isn’t 100% effective. Abortion is all but illegal in the State of Texas.. 
 

Is it your position that sex is immoral for the poor with children?

You think the abortion law has had a material effect on current mother of three?

Double up on birth control.  The pill is $15 a month at Walmart and condoms are like 50 cents each.  Or do anal.  I don’t care.  Don’t expect others to pay for your kids.  

[Dahobbs 17255]

4 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Birth control isn’t 100% effective. Abortion is all but illegal in the State of Texas.. 
 

Is it your position that sex is immoral for the poor with children?

It probably is because he is a horrible fucking person that thinks only those like him are allowed to enjoy the fruits of life. 

 

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

You think the abortion law has had a material effect on current mother of three?

Double up on birth control.  The pill is $15 a month at Walmart and condoms are like 50 cents each.  Or do anal.  I don’t care.  Don’t expect others to pay for your kids.  

Lol, there is your right to life party platform right there. Fucking hypocritical bullshit. What you really mean is that only the well of like yourself should be allowed to enjoy life. 

[6th Street 6299]

It would be easier to call for higher tax rates on billionaires if our govt wasn't so fucking wasteful. Blowing trillions on some bullshit wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bridges to nowhere. The F35 JSF program. You could double Elon's tax rate and it wouldn't make any difference to the average American because the govt would just piss it away on some horseshit with zero oversight rather than spend it on building roads, hospitals, affordable health care, etc.

[Willfully Horn 7892]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You think the abortion law has had a material effect on current mother of three?

Double up on birth control.  The pill is $15 a month at Walmart and condoms are like 50 cents each.  Or do anal.  I don’t care.  Don’t expect others to pay for your kids.  

No, I don’t think it did. But I think it will.

Your other suggestions have merit, though I still refuse to condemn folks who run afoul of your moral code. Further, I don’t share it. I would posit it is immoral to renounce our responsibility to care for others, especially the weak and impoverished.

Edited to say that planning on children you can’t afford isn’t a proper path, either.

Edited December 22, 2021 by Willfully Horn
Explained

[Brew 2917]

These discussions always end up at the same place. However, the concept of our society only being as strong as it’s weakest link seems to miss a few of you. Add to that fact that we all have an obligation to make sure that children are properly cared for no matter the shortcomings of the shitheads that birthed them. We do a piss poor job of it as a society and need to get better to ever get ahead. That money has to come from someplace and those with means get to pay for it. I listen to people bitch about paying taxes all day every day and it is what it is, write the check and be somewhat happy for what you have. What you are paying is going to go up sooner or later.

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2648]

8 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

The mother of three shouldn’t have kids unless she can afford them. It’s immoral to have kids you cannot afford to take care of.  It’s immoral to expect others to pay for the care of offspring you chose to have. This isn’t hard for anyone with any common sense.  

"The father of three shouldn't have kids unless he can afford them. It's immoral to expect others to pay for the care of offspring you chose to have."  Why do males always disappear from the equation?

Singles mothers who are the ones actually taking care of these kids < single dads who may or may not have anything to do with offspring. Your bias is obvious. And I bet you're "pro-life" too because the women (only the women) chose to open their legs so it's on them. What a sickeningly narrow world view. Cue Sack: "I don't like deadbeat dads hurr durr"