Right Wing Extremist Violence Thread

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

And their taxes are flatter and less progressive than ours.  

In a recent interview on ABC’s This Week, Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders reiterated his position that he wants the United States to look more like Scandinavian countries policy-wise:

George Stephanopoulos: “I can hear the Republican attack ad right now: ‘He wants America to look more like Scandinavia.’”

Bernie Sanders: “What’s wrong with that?”

Specifically, Sanders wants the United States to adopt a lot of the spending policies that many of the Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden) are commonly known to have. Policies such as government sponsored college education, paid parental leave, and universal healthcare.

Many of these new government programs would be expensive and necessitate higher taxes. It is instructive to look at how Scandinavian countries structure their tax systems in order to raise revenue for these programs. Interestingly, some of the ways that Scandinavian countries raise revenue may make Sanders, who is a proponent of highly progressive taxation, uncomfortable.

High, but Flat Income and Payroll Taxes

Scandinavian countries are known for having high taxes on income. According to the OECD, Denmark (26.4 percent), Norway (19.7 percent), and Sweden (22.1 percent) all raise a high amount of tax revenue as a percent of GDP from individual income taxes and payroll taxes. This is compared to the 15 percent of GDP raised by the United States through its individual income taxes and payroll taxes.

In order to raise a lot of income tax revenue, income tax rates in Scandinavian countries are rather high except for in Norway. Denmark’s top marginal effective income tax rate is 60.4 percent. Sweden’s is 56.4 percent. Norway’s top marginal tax rate is 39 percent.

However, the rates are not necessarily the most important feature of the Scandinavian income tax systems. In fact, the United States’ top marginal income tax rate is higher than Norway’s and only 18 percent lower than Sweden’s, yet raises 40 percent less income and payroll tax revenue than Norway and 50 percent less than Sweden.

Scandinavian income taxes raise a lot of revenue because they are actually rather flat. In other words, they tax most people at these high rates, not just high-income taxpayers. The top marginal tax rate of 60 percent in Denmark applies to all income over 1.2 times the average income in Denmark. From the American perspective, this means that all income over $60,000 (1.2 times the average income of about $50,000 in the United States) would be taxed at 60 percent.

Sweden and Norway have similarly flat income tax systems. Sweden’s top marginal tax rate of 56.9 percent applies to all income over 1.5 times the average income in Sweden. Norway’s top marginal tax rate of 39 percent applies to all income over 1.6 times the average Norwegian income.

Compare this to The United States. The top marginal tax rate of 46.8 percent (state average and federal combined rates) kicks in at 8.5 times the average U.S. income (around $400,000). Comparatively, few taxpayers in the United States face the top marginal rate.

 

[Satchel 6,982]

On April 28, 2019 at 2:23 PM, Grandioso said:

 

He wrote an 800 page book trying to make the case that God is not great. Why?

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

A lot of diversity in those countries too.  

And here we get to the root of the problem and with America. Too many sacks of shit like the sack in the country who don’t want to share its immense wealth with the blacks and the browns. 

Thanks for illustrating the problem so well Sack. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

And their taxes are flatter and less progressive than ours.  

In a recent interview on ABC’s This Week, Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders reiterated his position that he wants the United States to look more like Scandinavian countries policy-wise:

George Stephanopoulos: “I can hear the Republican attack ad right now: ‘He wants America to look more like Scandinavia.’”

Bernie Sanders: “What’s wrong with that?”

Specifically, Sanders wants the United States to adopt a lot of the spending policies that many of the Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden) are commonly known to have. Policies such as government sponsored college education, paid parental leave, and universal healthcare.

Many of these new government programs would be expensive and necessitate higher taxes. It is instructive to look at how Scandinavian countries structure their tax systems in order to raise revenue for these programs. Interestingly, some of the ways that Scandinavian countries raise revenue may make Sanders, who is a proponent of highly progressive taxation, uncomfortable.

High, but Flat Income and Payroll Taxes

Scandinavian countries are known for having high taxes on income. According to the OECD, Denmark (26.4 percent), Norway (19.7 percent), and Sweden (22.1 percent) all raise a high amount of tax revenue as a percent of GDP from individual income taxes and payroll taxes. This is compared to the 15 percent of GDP raised by the United States through its individual income taxes and payroll taxes.

In order to raise a lot of income tax revenue, income tax rates in Scandinavian countries are rather high except for in Norway. Denmark’s top marginal effective income tax rate is 60.4 percent. Sweden’s is 56.4 percent. Norway’s top marginal tax rate is 39 percent.

However, the rates are not necessarily the most important feature of the Scandinavian income tax systems. In fact, the United States’ top marginal income tax rate is higher than Norway’s and only 18 percent lower than Sweden’s, yet raises 40 percent less income and payroll tax revenue than Norway and 50 percent less than Sweden.

Scandinavian income taxes raise a lot of revenue because they are actually rather flat. In other words, they tax most people at these high rates, not just high-income taxpayers. The top marginal tax rate of 60 percent in Denmark applies to all income over 1.2 times the average income in Denmark. From the American perspective, this means that all income over $60,000 (1.2 times the average income of about $50,000 in the United States) would be taxed at 60 percent.

Sweden and Norway have similarly flat income tax systems. Sweden’s top marginal tax rate of 56.9 percent applies to all income over 1.5 times the average income in Sweden. Norway’s top marginal tax rate of 39 percent applies to all income over 1.6 times the average Norwegian income.

Compare this to The United States. The top marginal tax rate of 46.8 percent (state average and federal combined rates) kicks in at 8.5 times the average U.S. income (around $400,000). Comparatively, few taxpayers in the United States face the top marginal rate.

 

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. 

Nice work Goebbels.

[Brandywine 1,326]

On 4/27/2019 at 8:30 PM, RPM said:

Mental healthcare needs an extreme overhaul. It's the source of a lot of our problems.

When it comes to overhauling mental health, should we start at the tippy top, like the President?

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

10 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

And here we get to the root of the problem and with America. Too many sacks of shit like the sack in the country who don’t want to share its immense wealth with the blacks and the browns. 

Thanks for illustrating the problem so well Sack. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Okay, cool.  Hook ‘em.  

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

10 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

And here we get to the root of the problem and with America. Too many sacks of shit like the sack in the country who don’t want to share its immense wealth with the blacks and the browns. 

Thanks for illustrating the problem so well Sack. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Are you sharing your wealth with blacks and browns?  Or are you a sack of shit who just runs his mouth on the internet virtue signaling and not doing a fucking thing to help. 

I’ve spent over $100k directly to Haiti sponsoring orphans the last 16 years.  Every single one has been black.  I also, along with my family, built an orphanage that houses, feeds and educates 100 kids.  

You see I actually sacrifice and help the less fortunate.  Do you?

[wildcat09 29,561]

"You see, because I feed these ten kids it's actually fine that I starve these other thousand."

[Enchubben 5,598]

14 hours ago, TDunk said:

They have a progressive tax rate like most countries.  They also have this going for them:

These are the top 10 happiest countries in the world:

1. Finland
2. Denmark
3. Norway
4. Iceland
5. Netherlands
6. Switzerland
7. Sweden
8. New Zealand
9. Canada
10. Australia

 

They also don't have to deal with assholes like you. 

Those places sound pretty great. I bet they accept tons of immigrants.

[David Dennison 19,441]

36 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Are you sharing your wealth with blacks and browns?  Or are you a sack of shit who just runs his mouth on the internet virtue signaling and not doing a fucking thing to help. 

I’ve spent over $100k directly to Haiti sponsoring orphans the last 16 years.  Every single one has been black.  I also, along with my family, built an orphanage that houses, feeds and educates 100 kids.  

You see I actually sacrifice and help the less fortunate.  Do you?

We know. You won't shut up about it.

[Enchubben 5,598]

12 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

"You see, because I feed these ten kids it's actually fine that I starve these other thousand."

Yep, totally apparent this guy is a total pos for donating to kids in Haiti, and that by doing so he is starving a thousand others.  You nailed it, person who does nothing but complain on the internet about others not doing enough.

[wildcat09 29,561]

5 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Yep, totally apparent this guy is a total pos for donating to kids in Haiti, and that by doing so he is starving a thousand others.  You nailed it, person who does nothing but complain on the internet about others not doing enough.

You don't read good do you?

[Brisketexan 106,640]

13 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

A lot of diversity in those countries too.  

 

13 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

And their taxes are flatter and less progressive than ours.  

In a recent interview on ABC’s This Week, Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders reiterated his position that he wants the United States to look more like Scandinavian countries policy-wise:

George Stephanopoulos: “I can hear the Republican attack ad right now: ‘He wants America to look more like Scandinavia.’”

Bernie Sanders: “What’s wrong with that?”

Specifically, Sanders wants the United States to adopt a lot of the spending policies that many of the Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden) are commonly known to have. Policies such as government sponsored college education, paid parental leave, and universal healthcare.

Many of these new government programs would be expensive and necessitate higher taxes. It is instructive to look at how Scandinavian countries structure their tax systems in order to raise revenue for these programs. Interestingly, some of the ways that Scandinavian countries raise revenue may make Sanders, who is a proponent of highly progressive taxation, uncomfortable.

High, but Flat Income and Payroll Taxes

Scandinavian countries are known for having high taxes on income. According to the OECD, Denmark (26.4 percent), Norway (19.7 percent), and Sweden (22.1 percent) all raise a high amount of tax revenue as a percent of GDP from individual income taxes and payroll taxes. This is compared to the 15 percent of GDP raised by the United States through its individual income taxes and payroll taxes.

In order to raise a lot of income tax revenue, income tax rates in Scandinavian countries are rather high except for in Norway. Denmark’s top marginal effective income tax rate is 60.4 percent. Sweden’s is 56.4 percent. Norway’s top marginal tax rate is 39 percent.

However, the rates are not necessarily the most important feature of the Scandinavian income tax systems. In fact, the United States’ top marginal income tax rate is higher than Norway’s and only 18 percent lower than Sweden’s, yet raises 40 percent less income and payroll tax revenue than Norway and 50 percent less than Sweden.

Scandinavian income taxes raise a lot of revenue because they are actually rather flat. In other words, they tax most people at these high rates, not just high-income taxpayers. The top marginal tax rate of 60 percent in Denmark applies to all income over 1.2 times the average income in Denmark. From the American perspective, this means that all income over $60,000 (1.2 times the average income of about $50,000 in the United States) would be taxed at 60 percent.

Sweden and Norway have similarly flat income tax systems. Sweden’s top marginal tax rate of 56.9 percent applies to all income over 1.5 times the average income in Sweden. Norway’s top marginal tax rate of 39 percent applies to all income over 1.6 times the average Norwegian income.

Compare this to The United States. The top marginal tax rate of 46.8 percent (state average and federal combined rates) kicks in at 8.5 times the average U.S. income (around $400,000). Comparatively, few taxpayers in the United States face the top marginal rate.

 

Perfect examples of missing the forest for the trees.

The "less diversity" in those countries that matters isn't racial....it's something that we're failing wildly at in recent decades.  Income inequality.  The US has staggering income inequality, so when you're looking to tax "where the money is," mathematics dictates that you look at mostly the top end of the graph -- it's where most all of the money is.

In Norway, on the other hand.....

And these results all start at the beginning -- a better education system, broad and equal social support (things like universal healthcare), etc.  Sure, every country and culture is different and will be different in some ways.

But here, if we took some of the basic measures that most other western democracies have taken to reduce income and wealth inequality, then you 1) create a larger class of people who make real money and have real money, and then 2) you can and should tax that increasingly larger group of folks, which results in a much flatter looking tax chart.

The fact that we have such a starkly progressive tax system is a symptom of an underlying illness in our system.  It would be MUCH better for us if we helped create more households who could make enough money to pay into a flatter tax system.

But, you're surely right.  It's because we have black and brown folks.  That's clearly the answer.

[ChickenSandwich 9,921]

The Mayor of Portland failed to get a reprieve before May Day, well the citizens of Portland are getting exactly what they have been protesting for...FUCK DA POLICE.

 

Clackamas County deputies no longer responding to routine calls in Portland, safety cited

 

Living in Antifa Par-a-dise....

https://katu.com/news/local/clackamas-county-deputies-no-longer-responding-to-routine-calls-in-portland-safety-cited

[Foosters 18,230]

Um, ok? Are you trying to make a point? Is it common for sheriffs from one county to respond to calls in other counties? I've never seen, for example, a Ventura county sheriff respond to a 911 call in LA County.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

8 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Are you sharing your wealth with blacks and browns?  Or are you a sack of shit who just runs his mouth on the internet virtue signaling and not doing a fucking thing to help. 

I’ve spent over $100k directly to Haiti sponsoring orphans the last 16 years.  Every single one has been black.  I also, along with my family, built an orphanage that houses, feeds and educates 100 kids.  

You see I actually sacrifice and help the less fortunate.  Do you?

Well I am a sack of shit who runs his mouth on the internet, you got that part right.

I’m not as wealthy as you sack, so I don’t have that much to share, other than what I give to family and pay in taxes. As part of my job though, I personally help all sorts of folks, including the blacks and browns. Hope that counts. 

Your good deeds notwithstanding, the point still stands. Your entire political view seems to revolve around that with respect to the poor, while they may be a bunch of freeloaders, are only worthy of your help if you dein to decide to help them personally or it benefits you financially, but not your help via the government. This is in stark contrast to the view of those ultra white Swedes. Accurate?

[JimmyJames 12,271]

8 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Are you sharing your wealth with blacks and browns?  Or are you a sack of shit who just runs his mouth on the internet virtue signaling and not doing a fucking thing to help. 

I’ve spent over $100k directly to Haiti sponsoring orphans the last 16 years.  Every single one has been black.  I also, along with my family, built an orphanage that houses, feeds and educates 100 kids.  

You see I actually sacrifice and help the less fortunate.  Do you?

And BTW, all of those alleged good deeds you brag about are cancelled out a hundred times by your current support of shitstain president trump and his evil family separation policy. 

Maybe you should donate 100k to reunite those families instead. Might be money better spent. 

But you won’t, because your so pro brown and black, as clearly evidenced by your pro Haitian orphan policy. Hope that makes you feel good. 

[bolverk 30,245]

It appears that a lot of those orphanages are a money making scam.

Charities and voluntourism fuelling 'orphanage crisis' in Haiti, says NGO

Charitable donations and volunteers from abroad are supporting Haitian orphanages where children are vulnerable to abuse, a report finds

Charitable givers from the US who believe they are helping Haitian orphans are instead funding the abuse and neglect of children at orphanages in the Caribbean country, a report from the NGO Lumos has found.

At least 30,000 children live in privately-run orphanages in Haiti, a country that has suffered multiple natural disasters displacing many families.

More than a third of Haiti’s 752 orphanages are funded by donations from abroad amounting to $70m (£54m), 92% of which comes from philanthropic and charity givers in the US.

But an estimated 80% of the children living in these facilities are not actually orphaned: they have one or more living parent, and almost all have other relatives, according to the Haitian government.

Lumos, the NGO founded by author JK Rowling, campaigns for an end to the institutionalisation of children. It believes this not only hinders a child’s development, but makes them more likely to experience abuse.

Funds from foreign countries, especially the US, is putting thousands of children at risk from abuse and trafficking, found the report [pdf], released on 20 June. Under international law, child trafficking is “the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of children for the purpose of exploitation”.

Networks of traffickers are suspected of recruiting and deceiving children into orphanages to gain money from abroad, the Haitian state research authority (IBESR) believes. Indeed, Lumos found evidence of parents believing their children would receive a better education in orphanages, orphanage directors paid “child finders” to recruit children to the orphanages, and in some cases families were paid $75 to give their child away.

“Many parents are deceived into giving up their children, purely so that unscrupulous individuals can make a profit,” said Lumos’ CEO, Georgette Mulheir.

...

[Jack Straw 2,955]

On 4/30/2019 at 9:26 AM, Johnny Sack said:

I’ve spent over $100k directly to Haiti sponsoring orphans the last 16 years.  Every single one has been black.  I also, along with my family, built an orphanage that houses, feeds and educates 100 kids.  

You see I actually sacrifice and help the less fortunate.  Do you?

this is the fancy version of "i'm not racist, i can't be - one of my friends is black"

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

In reference to Sack and the commentary about him, I can only say what I've said many times here. You people have lost your senses. You appear to have no ability to determine the difference between good and bad. Take a day off, step away from the keyboard, take a walk at the park. Up isn't down, left isn't right. Get some perspective.

 

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

On 4/30/2019 at 7:57 PM, bolverk said:

It appears that a lot of those orphanages are a money making scam.

Charities and voluntourism fuelling 'orphanage crisis' in Haiti, says NGO

Charitable donations and volunteers from abroad are supporting Haitian orphanages where children are vulnerable to abuse, a report finds

Charitable givers from the US who believe they are helping Haitian orphans are instead funding the abuse and neglect of children at orphanages in the Caribbean country, a report from the NGO Lumos has found.

At least 30,000 children live in privately-run orphanages in Haiti, a country that has suffered multiple natural disasters displacing many families.

More than a third of Haiti’s 752 orphanages are funded by donations from abroad amounting to $70m (£54m), 92% of which comes from philanthropic and charity givers in the US.

But an estimated 80% of the children living in these facilities are not actually orphaned: they have one or more living parent, and almost all have other relatives, according to the Haitian government.

Lumos, the NGO founded by author JK Rowling, campaigns for an end to the institutionalisation of children. It believes this not only hinders a child’s development, but makes them more likely to experience abuse.

Funds from foreign countries, especially the US, is putting thousands of children at risk from abuse and trafficking, found the report [pdf], released on 20 June. Under international law, child trafficking is “the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of children for the purpose of exploitation”.

Networks of traffickers are suspected of recruiting and deceiving children into orphanages to gain money from abroad, the Haitian state research authority (IBESR) believes. Indeed, Lumos found evidence of parents believing their children would receive a better education in orphanages, orphanage directors paid “child finders” to recruit children to the orphanages, and in some cases families were paid $75 to give their child away.

“Many parents are deceived into giving up their children, purely so that unscrupulous individuals can make a profit,” said Lumos’ CEO, Georgette Mulheir.

...

I think it was the BBC that did a radio piece on this a week or two ago. I found it extremely unpersuasive. If you are going to say 'it leaves children more vulnerable to abuse" I'd like to hear support for that claim, and they offered none. 

 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

2 hours ago, Jack Straw said:

this is the fancy version of "i'm not racist, i can't be - one of my friends is black"

One time I saw the sack hold the door open for a black woman. Even nodded to her. 

Fact.

[bolverk 30,245]

24 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

I think it was the BBC that did a radio piece on this a week or two ago. I found it extremely unpersuasive. If you are going to say 'it leaves children more vulnerable to abuse" I'd like to hear support for that claim, and they offered none. 

 

You clearly didn't read the remainder of the article, which notes that some orphanages in Haiti are known to have paid parents to place them in their care so that they can receive American donations while in some cases also human traffic the children. It goes on to note:

The report also reaffirmed the argument that orphanages cause significant harm to children. Growing up without personal care and a family environment can cause significant developmental and psychological delays. The last 80 years of research into the effects of institutionalised care has found deficits to the child’s “physical growth, cognitive function and social-psychological health”, according to the Lancet medical journal. As many as one in 10 children [pdf] who have been institutionalised commit suicide; one in seven become prostitutes.

So, yes, separating children from their families under the pretense of being an orphan can make them vulnerable to abuse and can have severe consequences.

Any reasonable individual with critical thinking skills (or common sense) should be able to see that incentivizing destitute parents to give up their children for cold, hard cash is ripe for abuse.

The report that's being referred to is also hyperlinked within the quoted article.

Edited May 2, 2019 by bolverk

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

3 minutes ago, bolverk said:

You clearly didn't read the remainder of the article, which notes that some orphanages in Haiti are known to have paid parents to place them in their so that they can receive American donations while in some cases also human traffic the children. It goes on to note:

The report also reaffirmed the argument that orphanages cause significant harm to children. Growing up without personal care and a family environment can cause significant developmental and psychological delays. The last 80 years of research into the effects of institutionalised care has found deficits to the child’s “physical growth, cognitive function and social-psychological health”, according to the Lancet medical journal. As many as one in 10 children [pdf] who have been institutionalised commit suicide; one in seven become prostitutes.

So, yes, separating children from their families under the pretense of being an orphane can make them vulnerable to abuse and can have severe consequences.

Any reasonable individual with critical thinking skills (or common sense) should be able to see that incentivizing destitute parents to give up their children for cold, hard cash is ripe for abuse.

The report that's being referred to is also hyperlinked within the quoted article.

Of course it can. I asked for evidence. None has been offered.

Leaving the kids in a home where the kids are starving also leaves the children vulnerable to abuse. I'm interested in knowing where the kids are better off. You article doesn't provide evidence, just a bunch of talking points without evidentiary support.

Without reading the Lancet articles, I can tell you they don't matter. Do you know why? This is a fallacy known as "appeal to authority", but specifically, do you know why the Lancet articles cannot possibly be relevant?

Edited May 2, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[JimmyJames 12,271]

3 minutes ago, bolverk said:

You clearly didn't read the remainder of the article, which notes that some orphanages in Haiti are known to have paid parents to place them in their care so that they can receive American donations while in some cases also human traffic the children. It goes on to note:

The report also reaffirmed the argument that orphanages cause significant harm to children. Growing up without personal care and a family environment can cause significant developmental and psychological delays. The last 80 years of research into the effects of institutionalised care has found deficits to the child’s “physical growth, cognitive function and social-psychological health”, according to the Lancet medical journal. As many as one in 10 children [pdf] who have been institutionalised commit suicide; one in seven become prostitutes.

So, yes, separating children from their families under the pretense of being an orphan can make them vulnerable to abuse and can have severe consequences.

Any reasonable individual with critical thinking skills (or common sense) should be able to see that incentivizing destitute parents to give up their children for cold, hard cash is ripe for abuse.

The report that's being referred to is also hyperlinked within the quoted article.

Thanks Obama!

Seriously this is not surprising at all. Just writing checks doesn’t do much good if you don’t really know how it’s being spent.

But most people know that. Not everyone does though, apparently.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Little orphan Annie seemed to do alright though. Maybe the sack can take on the role of the new daddy warbucks. Call him daddy grocerybucks. 

[bolverk 30,245]

7 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Of course it can. I asked for evidence. None has been offered.

Leaving the kids in a home where the kids are starving also leaves the children vulnerable to abuse. I'm interested in knowing where the kids are better off. You article doesn't provide evidence, just a bunch of talking points without evidentiary support.

From your favorite news source:

Ten Republican and Democratic members of the U.S. Senate have asked the State Department to pressure the Haitian government to close an orphanage where "multiple" children being adopted by American families have allegedly been victims of sexual abuse.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/haitian-orphanage-should-be-shuttered-after-sex-abuse-allegations-us-senators-say

Or you could just Google "abuse" "Haiti" "orphanages." There are literally dozens of articles concerning the subject.

 

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Little orphan Annie seemed to do alright though. Maybe the sack can take on the role of the new daddy warbucks. Call him daddy grocerybucks. 

Or he's paying for food, clothing, and shelter for kids who wouldn't otherwise have it. 

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

Just now, bolverk said:

From your favorite news source:

Ten Republican and Democratic members of the U.S. Senate have asked the State Department to pressure the Haitian government to close an orphanage where "multiple" children being adopted by American families have allegedly been victims of sexual abuse.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/haitian-orphanage-should-be-shuttered-after-sex-abuse-allegations-us-senators-say

Or you could just Google "abuse" "Haiti" "orphanages." There are literally dozens of articles concerning the subject.

 

Do you understand you are proving my point? Does anyone dispute what Haiti is and why it is that way? Of course not. 

The claim you are making is that there is more abuse in orphanages than there would be if the children were not in the orphanages. I'm waiting for the first piece of evidence to support that claim.

I can find evidence of Boy Scout leaders abusing kids. Does that mean Boy Scouts is bad? Teachers fuck students all the time. Do schools leave children vulnerable to abuse and so we need to close them? You're not making sense.

Edited May 2, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[bolverk 30,245]

30 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

The claim you are making is that there is more abuse in orphanages than there would be if the children were not in the orphanages.

I never made any such claim. It's understandable that a great intellect such as yourself would make that inference but you're missing the point.

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I never made any such claim. It's understandable that a great intellect such as yourself would make that inference but you're missing the point.

Your statement.

Quote

It appears that a lot of those orphanages are a money making scam.

Charities and voluntourism fuelling 'orphanage crisis' in Haiti, says NGO

Charitable donations and volunteers from abroad are supporting Haitian orphanages where children are vulnerable to abuse, a report finds

 

[bolverk 30,245]

6 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

Your statement.

 

Oh. My. God. You're dumb.

[NowThis 931]

was this incident at a DC bookstore mentioned in thread? 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/white-nationalists-protest-washington-bookstore_n_5cc4de01e4b04eb7ff96aa50

White Nationalists Storm Washington Bookstore Reading: ‘This Land Is Our Land’

The group protested the author Jonathan Metzl’s book reading on the same day a white supremacist gunned down worshippers at a synagogue.

 

A small group of white nationalists stormed a bookstore in Washington, D.C., to protest an event for a book on racial politics and how it’s impacting lower- and middle-class white Americans.

The group stormed the Politics and Prose bookstore on Saturday afternoon, interrupting a scheduled talk by Jonathan Metzl, a professor of sociology and psychiatry at Vanderbilt University who released his book “Dying of Whiteness: How the Politics of Racial Resentment Is Killing America’s Heartland” this spring.

 

 

 

wtf are they yelling at the end? 

[High Plains Drifter 11,162]

On 4/29/2019 at 5:24 PM, Johnny Sack said:

Yes. In those countries everyone pays a high percentage of income in taxes. Not just the “rich”.  All those Nordic countries the left jerks off about have a much, much flatter tax structure than we do.  Is there a dem that will run on raising taxes on the bottom 50 percent?

 

Bullshitcough.gif

On 4/29/2019 at 8:36 PM, Johnny Sack said:

And their taxes are flatter and less progressive than ours.  

In a recent interview on ABC’s This Week, Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders reiterated his position that he wants the United States to look more like Scandinavian countries policy-wise:

George Stephanopoulos: “I can hear the Republican attack ad right now: ‘He wants America to look more like Scandinavia.’”

Bernie Sanders: “What’s wrong with that?”

Specifically, Sanders wants the United States to adopt a lot of the spending policies that many of the Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden) are commonly known to have. Policies such as government sponsored college education, paid parental leave, and universal healthcare.

Many of these new government programs would be expensive and necessitate higher taxes. It is instructive to look at how Scandinavian countries structure their tax systems in order to raise revenue for these programs. Interestingly, some of the ways that Scandinavian countries raise revenue may make Sanders, who is a proponent of highly progressive taxation, uncomfortable.

High, but Flat Income and Payroll Taxes

Scandinavian countries are known for having high taxes on income. According to the OECD, Denmark (26.4 percent), Norway (19.7 percent), and Sweden (22.1 percent) all raise a high amount of tax revenue as a percent of GDP from individual income taxes and payroll taxes. This is compared to the 15 percent of GDP raised by the United States through its individual income taxes and payroll taxes.

In order to raise a lot of income tax revenue, income tax rates in Scandinavian countries are rather high except for in Norway. Denmark’s top marginal effective income tax rate is 60.4 percent. Sweden’s is 56.4 percent. Norway’s top marginal tax rate is 39 percent.

However, the rates are not necessarily the most important feature of the Scandinavian income tax systems. In fact, the United States’ top marginal income tax rate is higher than Norway’s and only 18 percent lower than Sweden’s, yet raises 40 percent less income and payroll tax revenue than Norway and 50 percent less than Sweden.

Scandinavian income taxes raise a lot of revenue because they are actually rather flat. In other words, they tax most people at these high rates, not just high-income taxpayers. The top marginal tax rate of 60 percent in Denmark applies to all income over 1.2 times the average income in Denmark. From the American perspective, this means that all income over $60,000 (1.2 times the average income of about $50,000 in the United States) would be taxed at 60 percent.

Sweden and Norway have similarly flat income tax systems. Sweden’s top marginal tax rate of 56.9 percent applies to all income over 1.5 times the average income in Sweden. Norway’s top marginal tax rate of 39 percent applies to all income over 1.6 times the average Norwegian income.

Compare this to The United States. The top marginal tax rate of 46.8 percent (state average and federal combined rates) kicks in at 8.5 times the average U.S. income (around $400,000). Comparatively, few taxpayers in the United States face the top marginal rate.

 

 

What about the extremely regressive gasoline taxes, sales taxes, fees, surcharges, etc? Are they also flat in Scandinavia? Or do they not rely on those types of taxes?

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

13 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Bullshitcough.gif

 

What about the extremely regressive gasoline taxes, sales taxes, fees, surcharges, etc? Are they also flat in Scandinavia? Or do they not rely on those types of taxes?

The EU has some of the highest fuel taxes in the world.  And of course they have all those taxes.  Most higher than ours.

[High Plains Drifter 11,162]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

The EU has some of the highest fuel taxes in the world.  And of course they have all those taxes.  Most higher than ours.

 

I'll give you benefit of the doubt and assume that is true. The Tax Foundation would make a better argument if they included that info in their report.

Because honestly, I would have no problem with a perfectly flat tax structure if the entire tax structure were flat, not just income tax. But we are nowhere near that.

 

Is the Tax Foundation also in favor of giving more back to the poors in the form of a higher safety net, universal health care, etc etc? Or just raising their taxes out of some idea of "fairness"?
 

[Pancho 46,066]

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,619]

...but Antifa.

[Chooky 13,337]

"Go back to Hitler days ..." That's the level I'd expect with these guys. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[SDG 3,335]

What does this post have to do with either politics or the thread topic?  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

2 hours ago, SDG said:

What does this post have to do with either politics or the thread topic?  

Are you not familiar with the sovereign citizens movement? They’re not really right or left but they are anti-government extremists 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[Foosters 18,230]

Wait, he was military? Dude should just plead guilty tomorrow. He'll be pardoned by Friday.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Some more of his posts.  Check the dates:

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Twitter thread 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Gab . 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,839]

Photo of the guy who tried to shoot up the Federal building in Dallas. Of course, he might just be out hunting.

 

 

[Captainant 28,410]

14 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Photo of the guy who tried to shoot up the Federal building in Dallas. Of course, he might just be out hunting.

 

 

Kinda looks like Milton from office space

[Longhorn_Fan68 34,080]

he ded. good riddance you piece of terrorist shit