placeholder

There's no reason why onshore wind farms and agriculture can't co-exist. Wind energy gives American farmers a new crop to sell in tough times https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/02/16/wind-energy-can-help-american-farmers-earn-money-avoid-bankruptcy/4695670002/

You have a point. There is lots of ignorance on the subject out there. On the part of people who claim that renewables will push up the cost of power, for example.

Well, I gave you a chance to have an out. I really can't believe that someone would make such a sweeping statement given that they have access to thing called Google. Once again, here's your statement: "No US regime has reduced the deficit in recent history i.e. this century." And here are the facts: https://www.thebalancemoney.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

A large percentage? Really? That's the best you can do? I doubt you could be any more vague.

Did any of the other major social media providers experience the kind of fall that Twitter did?

Look who's talking.

Have you heard of the term income inequality? Out of all the fully developed nations, America has the highest level of income inequality. The wealthiest Americans have increased their percentage of of total national income. So naturally they are going to be paying a larger share of taxes. What the wealthy have succeeded in doing is reducing the highest tax rates of the graduated income tax. So they pay a lot smaller percentage of their income than they used to.

Do you mean the national debt? Deficits are about revenue shortfalls for yearly budgets.

Well, for one thing, the government could raise taxes. In the case of Social Security, as noted elsewhere, the Warren-Sanders proposal all by itself would for the next 75 years. Anyway, it's political suicide to pass legislation to renege on Social Security obligations. It won't happen.

I guess you're not familiar with the income tax system as it was founded. It was designed to be progressive. At any rate in the 1950s the average tax on the wealthiest people was 40%. Now it's 26% You think that happened by accident? In addition to which, lots of ways in which the rich acquire wealth or pay themselves are not taxed. This has been discussed repeatedly.

I should add that no tax of any sort is going to be levied on those shares in the case of inheritance.

So that's what they were doing at his place. He was "liking" 16 or 17 year old girls? His conviction in Florida for procuring a child for prostitution was widely known. He had underage women at his home. I don't think there was anything on the premised that resembled a restaurant or a shop. No parent or Girl Scout leader in sight, either.

Just to make sure you've seen it, here's the link to the speech again: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/68606

False. If Ballmer declares a loss on his tax sale, he can deduct that loss from any investment gains he made in that year. If he hadn't done that then he would have had to pay more in taxes that year. The artificial loss his transaction created is utterly irrelevant to the tax on his ultimate gains of those shares. And what you neglect to point out is that if Ballmer doesn't ever sell that stock, but passes it on to his heirs, no capital gains tax is due at all.

Actually, I've brought this up before in response to your objections. Here is a link to a speech Putin recently made. He compares Peter the Great's campaigns of returning and restoring territory that was once part of Russia to his current campaign of returning and restoring territory taht was once part of Russia. He even specifically mentions Narva, which is part of present day Estonia. Here's a link: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/68606 And here's a map which shows Russia's expansion under Peter the Great https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSwk3NljXEo

I did look at at KhunLA posted? It lists the average income tax rate paid by the top 1% as 26.1%. Not anywhere close to the 40% that such taxpayers paid in the 50's. What's more, these number don't reflected how the value of stocks has zoomed in relation to the economy. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/stock-market-capitalization-to-gdp-for-united-states-fed-data.html And one tactic employed by the wealthy to avoid paying taxes is to borrow against their assets, which are mostly stock and keep their salaries low. Loaned money is not taxed. So the wealthy pay just for the cost of interest on the loan which is substantially less than what they would pay on taxes. And this is just one way the super wealthy avoid paying taxes.

Having served your time, doesn't mean that you are no longer a lowlife. Given how Epstein flagrantly continued to associate with very young women, it's clear that he wasn't a reformed character. And anyone associating with him at one of his homes couldn't help but see that.

Let's start with the last statistic first. Your claim is false. This is from taxfoundation.org which is a conservative group which advocates for lower taxes. The average income tax rate in 2020 was 13.6 percent. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 25.99 percent average rate, more than eight times higher than the 3.1 percent average rate paid by the bottom half of taxpayers. https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/ As for the role of inheritance in being wealthy in the USA: "A recent study of ultra-rich Americans showed that almost three-quarters had help in building their fortunes. According to a Bank of America Private Bank study into the backgrounds of the ultra wealthy, the remaining 27% did not inherit any money at all. " https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/personal-finance/articles/study-shows-only-27-of-wealthy-americans-are-self-made/#:~:text=28% have legacy wealth%3A People,affluent background and inherited money.

All billionaires? Hedge fund billionaires? Heirs to billionaires? And even if it were true, so what? If we were to accept the logic of your argument, why tax billionaires at all. After all, the more profit they make, the more profit they have to invest. The more they invest, the better for the economy. But why stop with billionaires? Why not millionaires as well? The case you make is extremely simplistic. For one, there's plenty of historical evidence to show that the wealthy can be taxed at a much higher rate than they are now. In the United States tax rates on the wealthy were much higher in the 50's and 60's and growth was faster. As for France.. France’s Rich Get Much Richer After Abolition Of Wealth Tax A new report highlights the impact of a controversial government policy to reduce taxes on the wealthiest people in French society. It concludes that instead of economic growth, as envisaged, the very wealthy have just got richer. Le Monde called it a “highly flammable report” particularly at a time when “more and more households are being pushed into poverty.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexledsom/2020/10/09/frances-rich-get-much-richer-after-abolition-of-wealth-tax/?sh=41febb4d1fb5 The thing is, there is only so much investment that an economy is capable of absorbing. And we know that the wealthy and corporations are taking too big a share because of the kind of investments they now make. For example, until recently, governments were offering bonds that paid negative interest. Even so, they were oversubscribed. In other words, the wealthy were actually paying governments to hold on to their money. Clearly, that shows that there is lots of money out there with no place to go. Also, corporations are spending billions on stock buybacks instead of investing in their own growth. It just so happens lots of bonuses for corporate officers are tied to gains in stock prices. In the USA, until the Reagan administration came along, that was illegal. It was judged to be stock price manipulation. Which it obviously is.

. As the article specifically says, Ballmer generated tax losses on the sale. And god knows what point you think you are making by the losses can only be used to offset a gain. That's what artificial losses like these are for. To offset gains elsewhere. Your notion that this only delays payment of tax is false.

Making money by mining minerals is one thing. Making it by mining the tax code is something else entirely.

Oh, that one. I really thought it was the other one.

According to that article, one proposal from the Democrats got 88% support from Democrats and 79% support from Republicans Namely: Raising the payroll tax cap is the one proposal that got “overwhelming bipartisan support,” according to Kull. In 2022, Social Security payroll taxes are applied on up to $147,000 in income, a level that is adjusted each year. That means high earners may pay Social Security payroll taxes for just part of the year. Bernie Sanders and Elisabeth Warren's proposal to resume levying tax at $250,000 would extend Social Securitys solvency for 75 years. Actually it would exend if longer if the portion of their proposal that would the benefit level was cut from their bill. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/09/sanders-warren-bill-would-extend-social-securitys-solvency-expand-benefits.html

Not angry. Just contemptuous. Several of us have pointed out the flaws in reasonably lucid prose but you just rant back instead of rationally addressing the points raised.

You're also unaware but Putin has said he wants to restore the Russian empire back to what it was. Apparently, you're confusing being psychic with being well informed.