The Scourge of America with Integrity (On Topic Only Please)

[Integrity]

Your plan is even more ridiculous. The only way it would work is if someone was pointing a barrel of a gun at people making them do it under the threat of prison and confiscation. it’s OK to make a topic but when you make a topic that you purposely try to evade every question it actually just creates confusion and that’s what you’ve done here.

What question am I evading?

 

[Integrity]

Ever notice his posts sound like he's standing nobly on a mountaintop with the wind flowing through his hair yet he hardly ever gives a direct answer to questions about his ideas and beliefs?

I give direct answers frequently an often.

Not always though.

 

[Integrity]

Nothing noble about saying you have an idea and then denying every aspect of it is something you want to do or has to be done in order to implement it.

What have I denied. You disagree with my point of view at times, and I yours. What is the big deal.

 

[Thebrownblob]

What question am I evading?

Mostly all of them, but especially how to achieve such goals.

 

[Integrity]

Mostly all of them, but especially how to achieve such goals.

I think you are over complicating the original premise thus over complicating the discussion.

 

[Thebrownblob]

What have I denied. You disagree with my point of view at times, and I yours. What is the big deal.

You don’t have a point of view you have a utopian ideology that has no actual real world function, nor Legitimate plan. Your philosophy is, “I want to tax people who have more money than me” because i do you believe it will not affect you.

Then, when we try to pin down, how that would be achieved, you didn’t say any of these things it’s just gonna happen magically.

 

[Thebrownblob]

I think you are over complicating the original premise thus over complicating the discussion.

Right, how to achieve it is really complicated, you’re under complicating it almost like a child, would.

 

[Integrity]

You don’t have a point of view you have a utopian ideology that has no actual real world function, nor Legitimate plan. Your philosophy is, “I want to tax people who have more money than me” because i do you believe it will not affect you.

Then, when we try to pin down, how that would be achieved, you didn’t say any of these things it’s just gonna happen magically.

Never said that.

Never said anything about magic.

 

[Integrity]

Right, how to achieve it is really complicated, you’re under complicating it almost like a child, would.

You are not even discussing the point of the original post.

 

[Integrity]

Mostly all of them, but especially how to achieve such goals.

So many you don’t name one.

Can you even state the goal of the original post?

 

[Thebrownblob]

So many you don’t name one.

Can you even state the goal of the original post?

Did you not read my post? I said you don’t have a plan to achieve what you want to do which is the redistribution of wealth as you see fit. Unlike you, I put a cognitive sentence together

 

[Integrity]

Did you not read my post? I said you don’t have a plan to achieve what you want to do which is the redistribution of wealth as you see fit. Unlike you, I put a cognitive sentence together

Little chippy tonight.

I never stated a desire to redistribute wealth only stated a desire to de incentivize the accumulation of wealth. Nothing more. Do you know what de incentivize means?

 

[Thebrownblob]

Little chippy tonight.

I never stated a desire to redistribute wealth only stated a desire to de incentivize the accumulation of wealth. Nothing more. Do you know what de incentivize means?

Na not chippy although I have no idea why someone would be jealous of someone else’s wealth. To the point that they want the government to tax it away from them so they can have it.

 

[Integrity]

Na not chippy although I have no idea why someone would be jealous of someone else’s wealth. To the point that they want the government to tax it away from them so they can have it.

You misunderstood, and still do, the premise of this discussion. Nothing of what you say was said. Only implied by you. It is a common tactic.

Direct question:
Do you know what de incentivize means?

 

[Thebrownblob]

You misunderstood, and still do, the premise of this discussion. Nothing of what you say was said. Only implied by you. It is a common tactic.

Direct question:
Do you know what de incentivize means?

I do, do you know what redistribution of wealth is? and for what reason would I want to deincentivize people people who take risks earning as much as they can? It doesn’t affect me. I have no desire to be rich so they can have out if they want to. The wealthy already pay a pretty large chunk of the tax perhaps if they got rid of some of the loopholes that both parties enjoy that would be a smarter way.

Should we have de incentivized UPS earning billions so that when we went to the bargain table we get less also? Seems silly

 

[Fred's Myth]

You misunderstood, and still do, the premise of this discussion. Nothing of what you say was said. Only implied by you. It is a common tactic.

Direct question:
Do you know what de incentivize means?

Your premise is childish. You ignore what implementing your idea would entail, only that wishful thinking would suffice. Until you fill in the blanks, your suggestion is nothing more than crayon rainbows.

 

[vantexan]

I give direct answers frequently an often.

Not always though.

No, you don't.

 

[qdg2]

I give direct answers frequently an often.

Not always though.

Why wouldn't you give direct answers?

 

[vantexan]

You misunderstood, and still do, the premise of this discussion. Nothing of what you say was said. Only implied by you. It is a common tactic.

Direct question:
Do you know what de incentivize means?

The premise as I understand it is you believe those who make a lot of money have undue influence over how the country operates. That if you take away a lot more of their money you could not only greatly reduce their influence but also take away the tax burden of millions of Americans.

Have you considered that your plan would make the country extremely dependent on the rich continuing to make a lot of money so that you can continue to fund current entitlements? We are talking a lot of money. If you de incentivize them then what incentive do they have to continue to produce that much income? And this is assuming they could pay that much to begin with. I don't think you've thought this through nor do you understand how our system works.

 

[Integrity]

I do, do you know what redistribution of wealth is? and for what reason would I want to deincentivize people people who take risks earning as much as they can? It doesn’t affect me. I have no desire to be rich so they can have out if they want to. The wealthy already pay a pretty large chunk of the tax perhaps if they got rid of some of the loopholes that both parties enjoy that would be a smarter way.

Should we have de incentivized UPS earning billions so that when we went to the bargain table we get less also? Seems silly

Yes
To remove what is IMO the scourge of American Society.
Yes.
Not to me.