Reputation from tvc184 - Page 168 - SETXsports.com- Your Source for Sports on Southeast Texas

tvc184 got a reaction from Englebert in Outrage in STL August 15, 2014

Most of the tweets are gibberish from people that have no clue or are speculating.

I have addressed a couple above and could do so on many of them. I understand the questions but they are put forth as rhetorical statements of guilt on the part of the police and that does not always square with the law or procedure.

Merely saying someone was a suspect in a robbery that may have just happened means that he fits the general description. I have seen many people stopped and released on scene (and have done so myself) or at times arrested for something else other than the original intent of the stop. When a radio broadcast goes out that a small white car similar to a Honda or Toyota just left the scene, every small white car will likely be stopped in the immediate area. It doesn't mean that they are all guilty, it means they appear to be a possible suspect.

Michael Brown might have fit the description without being the person the police sought, if they were actually looking for someone. By saying that someone talked to a store clerk and having him say that Brown was not the person means almost nothing except that he wasn't the person. It does not negate Brown looking like a description given or the police having lawful justification to detain him.

None of that means that the police actually broadcast a description or if Brown generally fit that description but it is lawful for such a scenario to exist. The police should still release the tapes of the 911 call of the robbery, the radio broadcasts given to officers, etc. In fact the outside agencies looking into this incident probably already have it but it doesn't have to be immediately be released to the public. Not releasing it is seen by some as an admission of guilt which is incorrect.

tvc184 got a reaction from Mr. Buddy Garrity in African-American parents explain "The Talk" August 16, 2014

So do I.

tvc184 got a reaction from smitty in Outrage in STL August 15, 2014

That is not a typical photo however. I have lots of guns and a bit of cash. I have never been inclined to take such a photo and I doubt that many people reading this forum have done so either.

It means nothing by itself but it tends to show a bit less of the choir boy image that is being portrayed by some of Brown. In some ways it is the reverse of what is being done to the officer involved and to the police in general. It is taking something that in itself means nothing but one side or the other is using it as proof of guilt.

tvc184 got a reaction from Bobcat1 in Corporate Income Taxes - Close The Loopholes & Lower Taxes? August 15, 2014

ESO already hit it.

A family that is making $25,000 a year for a family of four is living paycheck to paycheck. Heck, many families making $75,000 a year are living paycheck to paycheck. The only difference is the size of the home, the number of vehicles and the quality of food. They are still spending almost every dollar on expenses whether it is bologna or steak.

So if we take a family making $25K and remove all taxes except what they spend, they will be taxed on 100% of their income as they are literally spending every dollar that they make. Even if you exempt some things as non taxable, they are still spending every dollar.

Now let's move up to that millionaire and every area has plenty of them. Let's say a family is making $1M a year. How much of that is being spend on goods (or services if that is taxed) and how much is being put in stocks, the bank and other such ventures where goods are not purchased? They might be spending $200K on actual goods so they are only taxed on 20% of their income. Instead of our current progressive tax where the more you make, the higher your tax rate, we would have a regressive tax where the more you make the less percentage you pay as it is not being spent on goods or services as the "fair tax" proponents want.

Of course in our fantasy world we could start taxing savings accounts, 401Ks, IRAs, etc. I am not talking about your interest income from those which is taxable but merely deposits. That is the only way you are going to get those millionaires to pay their "fair share". But who will it hurt? So when that family making $25K a year finally saves $500 and decides to start putting some away..... oops!, they are hit with a 10% tax at the time of deposit so that $500 is not only $450. See how long it will take at 1% interest from banks to make up that loss from merely making a deposit.

Simply put, there is no way that we can tax goods and/or services only and have it hurt the rich guy and not destroy the less fortunate. The very rich might make millions or even billions a year but you can bet they aren't spending that money. The poor family on the other hand is spending every cent.