“HR1” Introduced By The Pelosi-Led Democrats In The House Is A Power Grab Dressed Up As “Election Reform"!

[PAMFAM10]

I

3 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

Here's a thought though... they long since outlawed "poll taxes" because they were keeping people from voting.  

I guess I still wonder how smart it is to have people who pay no taxes participate in the decision-making process with people who do, in fact, pay taxes.  

It's like being in the car with your wife and three kids out looking for food, but you keep getting out-voted by the kids in the back seat. 

 

Literally. 

What is taxes? If I buy a sprite from cornerstone. I just paid taxes. So you’ll have to elaborate on that one. I can live in a rent house 10 years. Newcomer from wherever  buys the house next door. Should his voice be greater in the community?

[CardinalBacker]

2 minutes ago, PAMFAM10 said:

I

What is taxes? If I buy a sprite from cornerstone. I just paid taxes. So you’ll have to elaborate on that one. I can live in a rent house 10 years. Newcomer from wherever  buys the house next door. Should his voice be greater in the community?

I hear you... I mean, the system is what the system is.  But you have to realize it's a little bit flawed at its core.  

The fifteen cents you paid in taxes on that Sprite doesn't compare to the amount paid on other items by other people.  FOR INSTANCE, you have a ton of voters in PA who pay little to no ad valorem property taxes because they live in subsidized housing deciding which projects "we" want, when the refineries and high income voters will be the ones paying for those projects.  Does that sound fair?

That's why the mantra of the left has been that OTHER people need to pay "their fair share" when our share doesn't really exist.... 

I guess the question is "If I have no means of income, receive a gift from the Treasury in the form of EIC each spring instead of paying income taxes, and my housing literally is exempt from proerty taxation because it's a government-owned housing project, should buying a sprite with my EBT card and paying sales tax with other people's money give me a voice in how other people's tax dollars should be spent?"

Like I said... the system is what it is, but you have to admit that it's flawed.  I feel the same way about huge corporations like Amazon that have a $0 tax liability, but are currently in talks to buy the Washington Football Team in spite of the fact that the US taxpayers (through the USPS) lose money on every Amazon package that is delivered by the US Mule.  The whole system is just stupid. 

[Rez Ipsa]

40 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

No they don’t. They just pay you or take your money. Then they choose a small sample to audit based in certain risk criteria. If you’re telling me that our voting should be based on the integrity of how people file their taxes, then we are in big trouble. 
Their are lots of things that identify you: employer’s records, financial records, property records, business records, so in & so forth. You’re comparing apples to oranges. 

SmashMouth has a point. The IRS doesn't look that closely at tax returns as they come in, at least in the few weeks after they are sent in. The IRS has the resources to catch about 3% of tax evasion/fraud. Sometimes a discrepancy, error, or lie on taxes won't get caught for years, and many don't get caught at all. The IRS is even required to send out refund checks so quickly that they will send out the checks without doing a deep look to make sure the refund isn't fraudulent, and then follow up after the fact and come after the fraudsters they sent the checks to (that kind of fraud doesn't work every time, but I have seen it work in big enough numbers to get people in a lot of trouble). 

[Reagan]

15 insane things in Democrat's H.R. 1 bill to corrupt elections forever.  I think States may have something to say about this!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Rez Ipsa]

18 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

I hear you... I mean, the system is what the system is.  But you have to realize it's a little bit flawed at its core.  

The fifteen cents you paid in taxes on that Sprite doesn't compare to the amount paid on other items by other people.  FOR INSTANCE, you have a ton of voters in PA who pay little to no ad valorem property taxes because they live in subsidized housing deciding which projects "we" want, when the refineries and high income voters will be the ones paying for those projects.  Does that sound fair?

That's why the mantra of the left has been that OTHER people need to pay "their fair share" when our share doesn't really exist.... 

I guess the question is "If I have no means of income, receive a gift from the Treasury in the form of EIC each spring instead of paying income taxes, and my housing literally is exempt from proerty taxation because it's a government-owned housing project, should buying a sprite with my EBT card and paying sales tax with other people's money give me a voice in how other people's tax dollars should be spent?"

Like I said... the system is what it is, but you have to admit that it's flawed.  I feel the same way about huge corporations like Amazon that have a $0 tax liability, but are currently in talks to buy the Washington Football Team in spite of the fact that the US taxpayers (through the USPS) lose money on every Amazon package that is delivered by the US Mule.  The whole system is just stupid. 

I know we aren't really talking about taxes here, but just to throw off a misperception: Amazon doesn't have a $0 tax liability. Amazon pays millions and millions and millions of dollars in taxes. In particular, Amazon pays property taxes across the states it is located in in (including Texas), as well as turning over billions of sales taxes in every state that has sales taxes (and those taxes have only gone up over the past couple years due to a recent Supreme Court decision). Amazon, due to credits and incentives from the federal government, has had a relatively low federal tax payment, but that doesn't mean Amazon isn't contributing to federal and state revenues. Not to mention the fact that the money is taxed when it is paid out to Amazon's employees, meaning Amazon's people are contributing millions of dollars in federal income taxes. The real question isn't whether Amazon pays taxes, or whether Amazon should pay more. It's whether it's worthwhile and beneficial (to individuals and to the economy) for the government to incentivize investment by offering credits and incentives to companies who have the option of going elsewhere. Every community where Amazon sets up a distribution center instantly gets thousands of jobs, with all of the money and investment in the local economy that brings with it. It's not Amazon's job to choose to pay more taxes, it's Amazon's job to follow the law. So if Amazon can pay fewer taxes in one state as opposed to another state, it's the fault of the high-tax state for driving away jobs, not Amazon's fault for choosing a place where it can keep more of its profits and pay its employees more (money which will be spent, and taxed, anyway). 

 

[CardinalBacker]

3 minutes ago, Rez Ipsa said:

I know we aren't really talking about taxes here, but just to throw off a misperception: Amazon doesn't have a $0 tax liability. Amazon pays millions and millions and millions of dollars in taxes. In particular, Amazon pays property taxes across the states it is located in in (including Texas), as well as turning over billions of sales taxes in every state that has sales taxes (and those taxes have only gone up over the past couple years due to a recent Supreme Court decision). Amazon, due to credits and incentives from the federal government, has had a relatively low federal tax payment, but that doesn't mean Amazon isn't contributing to federal and state revenues. Not to mention the fact that the money is taxed when it is paid out to Amazon's employees, meaning Amazon's people are contributing millions of dollars in federal income taxes. The real question isn't whether Amazon pays taxes, or whether Amazon should pay more. It's whether it's worthwhile and beneficial (to individuals and to the economy) for the government to incentivize investment by offering credits and incentives to companies who have the option of going elsewhere. Every community where Amazon sets up a distribution center instantly gets thousands of jobs, with all of the money and investment in the local economy that brings with it. It's not Amazon's job to choose to pay more taxes, it's Amazon's job to follow the law. So if Amazon can pay fewer taxes in one state as opposed to another state, it's the fault of the high-tax state for driving away jobs, not Amazon's fault for choosing a place where it can keep more of its profits and pay its employees more (money which will be spent, and taxed, anyway). 

 

Actually, we gave them a tax refund (money given to them that wasn't even paid in by them) in 2017 and 2018. 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

It's not about whether they're paying in "some" money in state or local taxes.... it's the fact that they make millions in profits and pay nothing in corporate income taxes... in fact, we're actually paying them via tax credits AND subsidizing their business by delivering their packages via USPS at a loss to the American Taxpayer.  Spin it all you want, but that's not right. And we all know that those Amazon distribution centers don't pay local taxes due to abatement agreements.  Trust me... the old Italian neighborhoods liked having the mafia around... but it wasn't good for the rest of us. 

What's the point of having a 21% corporate tax rate if my plumber that incorporated has to pay it but Amazon doesn't?  

[BS Wildcats]

2 hours ago, PAMFAM10 said:

It never ends. USA has been trying to control who votes since the beginning.

What in the hell does requiring an ID to vote have to do with controlling who votes?   Always wanting to shout oppression and racism, and don’t say that is not what you meant!  Pathetic!!!!

[Reagan]

3 hours ago, PAMFAM10 said:

It never ends. USA has been trying to control who votes since the beginning.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you are talking about the USA trying to continuously control who legally votes!  That's a good thing, right?!

[SmashMouth]

2 hours ago, PAMFAM10 said:

The tax return is apple to Oranges I’m just curious of other alternatives. I believe it’s possible. 

I agree. 
What proof do you need to apply for a job?  
What proof do you use to apply for a carry license?
What proof do you need to get governmental assistance for food stamps or housing?  
What proof do you need to open a checking account?  
What proof do you need to get your vehicle registered?

Let’s use those items...

[BS Wildcats]

37 minutes ago, Reagan said:

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you are talking about the USA trying to continuously control who legally votes!  That's a good thing, right?!

You know good and well he is using the old standard called oppression.

[PAMFAM10]

8 hours ago, BS Wildcats said:

You know good and well he is using the old standard called oppression.

The old standard called US history yes I am.

[SmashMouth]

12 minutes ago, PAMFAM10 said:

The old standard called US history yes I am.

Your argument is somewhat fair. I’m just asking what harm there is in being asked to produce identification to vote?

[BS Wildcats]

5 hours ago, PAMFAM10 said:

The old standard called US history yes I am.

How does needing an ID equal to oppression?  You should try again, but you can’t.  This is what has been drilled into your brain since you were a kid.  The white man will always be against you.  But please, tell us how needing an ID to vote is bad.

[PAMFAM10]

11 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

How does needing an ID equal to oppression?  You should try again, but you can’t.  This is what has been drilled into your brain since you were a kid.  The white man will always be against you.  But please, tell us how needing an ID to vote is bad.

Please explain to me why YOU and YOU only is trying your hardest to derail this topic and make it about race.

US history with voting was not just discriminate towards blacks.( This topic has nothing to do with the “white man”

[BS Wildcats]

17 minutes ago, PAMFAM10 said:

Please explain to me why YOU and YOU only is trying your hardest to derail this topic and make it about race.

US history with voting was not just discriminate towards blacks.( This topic has nothing to do with the “white man”

Read back.  YOU brought up the race issue, without saying as much!!  We can all read between your lines.  But please, how is needing an ID to vote a bad thing?

[baddog]

17 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

Read back.  YOU brought up the race issue, without saying as much!!  We can all read between your lines.  But please, how is needing an ID to vote a bad thing?

Man, you have to have a license to FISH!

[SmashMouth]

4 hours ago, PAMFAM10 said:

Please explain to me why YOU and YOU only is trying your hardest to derail this topic and make it about race.

US history with voting was not just discriminate towards blacks.( This topic has nothing to do with the “white man”

Its not racial for me, I’m just trying to figure out why identification can’t be required?

[Reagan]

5 hours ago, baddog said:

Man, you have to have a license to FISH!

AND -- an ID to get a library card!!

[Reagan]

1 hour ago, SmashMouth said:

Its not racial for me, I’m just trying to figure out why identification can’t be required?

Everyone knows -- or needs to know -- that voter ID equals election integrity!   I always look who is for or against something then I know it's either good or bad.  Who are the most rabid opponents against voter ID.  There, you will find your answer that it's the right thing to do!

[BS Wildcats]

2 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

Its not racial for me, I’m just trying to figure out why identification can’t be required?

Exactly, has absolutely nothing to do with race, but that is what is being insinuated by certain segments of the population.