Re: Trump
« Reply #3980 on: July 01, 2019, 05:08:42 PM »
First off, I'm still waiting for the tax credit on being married.  What's it called?  If you want to call "married being in a differnet tax scale" then sure but it's really not.
https://smartasset.com/taxes/taxes-single-vs-married
If you notice, having two people with the same income doesn't really help.  Their effective tax rate is going to be about the same.

At 40k a year you'd never make it into the 38k+ or 77k+ brackets because at the very least you're taking a standard deduction. I suggest you depend on a real tax consultant to make decisions on your taxes instead of RandomTerribleWebsiteThatMightBeOutdated.org
Wow.
Just... Wow.
See, I thought you were one who read posts before commenting.

Quote
This, of course, is before tax deductions.  But the deductions are just double the single ones so... Yeah.

Also, I did that shit by hand.  Its just simple math.  If I really wanted to use real numbers, I'd load up turbo tax.  But you are not worth the 20 minutes it would take.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7061
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3981 on: July 01, 2019, 07:42:13 PM »
You are really trying hard to attack an argument I just didn’t make. I wast discussing marriage as an overall human phenomenon throughout all of history. I was talking about the ensconcing on marriage in the tax laws of the USA.

If marriage is as meritorious as you are saying there is no need to incentivize it, because it’s usefulness will be self-evident. But monogamous marriage is neither ubiquitous or necessary. Stable social units are. Sometimes those are established by marriages sometimes not.

If you don't understand why the state has historically recognized and subsidized marriages, then surely whatever argument you make is nonsensical regardless. Feel free to once again answer my post with "lol" in an effort to mask inferiority with humor.

Also, I did that shit by hand.  Its just simple math.  If I really wanted to use real numbers, I'd load up turbo tax.  But you are not worth the 20 minutes it would take.

If you're already aware that your numbers are incorrect one would wonder why you bothered to type them at all. By admitting the numbers are false, you also admit you tried to argue via a false premise.

Re: Trump
« Reply #3982 on: July 01, 2019, 09:15:19 PM »
If you're already aware that your numbers are incorrect one would wonder why you bothered to type them at all. By admitting the numbers are false, you also admit you tried to argue via a false premise.
By real I meant all the possible deductions the average person takes.  Geeze. 
But that is largely irrelevant as deductions for filing separate and deductions for filing joint married are largely the same or "double" the single.  Ya know, because two people.

I'm also still waiting for the "Married tax credit" or any evidence of subsidization you seem to be fixated on.  I mean, have you ever filed as a married person?

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5681
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3983 on: July 02, 2019, 12:53:35 AM »
You are really trying hard to attack an argument I just didn’t make. I wast discussing marriage as an overall human phenomenon throughout all of history. I was talking about the ensconcing on marriage in the tax laws of the USA.

If marriage is as meritorious as you are saying there is no need to incentivize it, because it’s usefulness will be self-evident. But monogamous marriage is neither ubiquitous or necessary. Stable social units are. Sometimes those are established by marriages sometimes not.

I’m right because I’m Rushy and I’m Rushy because I’m right.

Thanks for clearing that up.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7061
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3984 on: July 02, 2019, 02:41:52 PM »
You are really trying hard to attack an argument I just didn’t make. I wast discussing marriage as an overall human phenomenon throughout all of history. I was talking about the ensconcing on marriage in the tax laws of the USA.

If marriage is as meritorious as you are saying there is no need to incentivize it, because it’s usefulness will be self-evident. But monogamous marriage is neither ubiquitous or necessary. Stable social units are. Sometimes those are established by marriages sometimes not.

I’m right because I’m Rushy and I’m Rushy because I’m right.

Thanks for clearing that up.

If you would like to argue in good faith instead of making fallacies and answering posts with "lol" then I will answer in kind. Otherwise, it should not surprise you that your inept responses acquire nothing in return.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5681
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3985 on: July 02, 2019, 05:11:46 PM »
I did. You ignored it and concentrated on the lol.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 1485
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3986 on: July 02, 2019, 06:36:25 PM »
He's Rushing. Can we please get back to discussing the actual subject of this thread?

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-claims-homelessness-phenomenon-started-years-ago/story?id=64083965

Trump is dumb, discuss.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

Re: Trump
« Reply #3987 on: July 02, 2019, 06:58:15 PM »
He's Rushing. Can we please get back to discussing the actual subject of this thread?

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-claims-homelessness-phenomenon-started-years-ago/story?id=64083965

Trump is dumb, discuss.

Trump, being a rich, NYC realestate tycoon, has probably never seen a homeless person before, let alone "filth" on the streets.  I mean, it's not like he uses public transporation.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7061
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3988 on: July 02, 2019, 07:00:48 PM »
I did. You ignored it and concentrated on the lol.

"I shit in this glass of water, you should still be fine with it, because it's still mostly water" hmm, no. If you want people to take you seriously, you need to make your entire post one worth reading, not shit in it and get upset when people say "woah, this post has shit in it and isn't worth my time".

He's Rushing. Can we please get back to discussing the actual subject of this thread?

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-claims-homelessness-phenomenon-started-years-ago/story?id=64083965

Trump is dumb, discuss.

I don't see anywhere in that article where Trump claims that homelessness started two years ago. Could you specifically point it out?

Re: Trump
« Reply #3989 on: July 02, 2019, 08:44:58 PM »
Here's the whole section, in context.

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1145891322127114240

Specifically cities being filthy started two years ago.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7061
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3990 on: July 03, 2019, 02:45:48 AM »
Here's the whole section, in context.

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1145891322127114240

Specifically cities being filthy started two years ago.

Still doesn't match the "homelessness started two years ago" line. While what Trump meant by "phenomena" is vague, jumping to "he said homelessness started two years ago" is disingenuous.

Re: Trump
« Reply #3991 on: July 03, 2019, 04:33:44 AM »
Here's the whole section, in context.

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1145891322127114240

Specifically cities being filthy started two years ago.

Still doesn't match the "homelessness started two years ago" line. While what Trump meant by "phenomena" is vague, jumping to "he said homelessness started two years ago" is disingenuous.
It is but the context is clear: filthy cities in America started 2 years ago.  Not homelessness.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7061
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3992 on: July 03, 2019, 11:51:59 PM »
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146514575048790019

AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA

*breathes*

AAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

Re: Trump
« Reply #3993 on: July 04, 2019, 04:10:44 AM »
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146514575048790019

AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA

*breathes*

AAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

Its cute how he calls asylum seekers Illegal Immigrants.  He does know the difference, right?

Re: Trump
« Reply #3994 on: July 04, 2019, 07:34:15 AM »
You know how Yang is all "give everyone free money"?
I didn't know this but Alaska, a Republican stronghold, already does this.  $3,000 a year this year.  Almost double from last year.

Go figure.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10012
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #3995 on: July 04, 2019, 11:34:10 AM »
Its cute how he calls asylum seekers Illegal Immigrants.
Do all asylum seekers cross the border illegally? If not, I dare say calling them just "asylum seekers" would be overly generalising.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7061
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3996 on: July 04, 2019, 01:39:48 PM »
Its cute how he calls asylum seekers Illegal Immigrants.  He does know the difference, right?

The majority of illegal immigration is economic migration, not asylum seeking. Regardless, crossing the border without authorization is illegal,  asylum seeking should be done at ports of entry.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2019, 01:41:52 PM by Rushy »

Re: Trump
« Reply #3997 on: July 04, 2019, 01:56:11 PM »
imagine being more bothered by word choice than basic human dignity
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Re: Trump
« Reply #3998 on: July 04, 2019, 03:44:18 PM »
Its cute how he calls asylum seekers Illegal Immigrants.
Do all asylum seekers cross the border illegally? If not, I dare say calling them just "asylum seekers" would be overly generalising.
Question: if someone walks across a national border, are they automatically an immigrant?  Illegal if they cross illegally and legal if they cross legally?

Its cute how he calls asylum seekers Illegal Immigrants.  He does know the difference, right?

The majority of illegal immigration is economic migration, not asylum seeking. Regardless, crossing the border without authorization is illegal,  asylum seeking should be done at ports of entry.
Quite true.  I hope they know that.  I mean, they're at least turning themselves in as soon as possible.  What more could you ask for from what are likely people uneducated in American laws?


imagine being more bothered by word choice than basic human dignity
In some ways, I can understand the poor conditions.  The private company running these shelters had a massive influx of people and with profits at risk, what can John Kelly and the rest of the board do?

*

Offline Fortuna

  • *
  • Posts: 1949
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3999 on: July 04, 2019, 10:23:18 PM »
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146514575048790019

AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA

*breathes*

AAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

And yet the left will call this very reasonable statement Nazism.
I stopped going to the gym because of Trump. Now I can't open jars