Will Trump plan to eliminate the IRS?

@AuRevoir move all those armed irs agents to the border as cbp

@MasterLee I don’t believe they deserve the dignity of feigning that they’ve helped to serve Americans at all in their life. I say give them the walk of shame for every homeless person and every child that’s gone hungry because of the ridiculous state of policies they never called out going on in the government. While being critical and harsh if it’s citizens…

@AuRevoir People go hungry and homeless because of a progressive redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor? 🤔

@SunshineGirl Actually, all the welfare state has done is INCREASE the numbers of the poor.

Oh, and the poor are not poor just because the rich are rich. In America, the poor are poor ONLY through their own choices.

@SunshineGirl You clearly don’t pay attention to anything. The entire reason DOGE was implemented. Was because of the redistribution not going to the poor within America at all. So far they’ve cut budgets where it was going to stupid things. Hopefully they will continue to do so, such as the $20 billion Fauci was granted to kill and experiment on animals, in cruel and inhumane ways. None of which would help a single soul. If they cut that. Even to the most blindly obedient to the liberal left democrats disgusting practices. This much should be an obvious given.

Imagine how many souls could be better off if you have them $2,000 a month in spending. Compared to this obvious money laundering scheme. $20 billion starts to stretch a long way in actually helping the homeless.

You should learn what’s actually been going on with the money. Rather than assuming that just because they “say” they’re doing something. That’s actually what’s being done. The amount of homeless America has been faced with, is proof enough of that…

https://malliotakis.house.gov/media/in-the-news/heres-how-trump-20-can-cut-20-billion-spending-wipe-out-faucis-leftover-bloat-and

@Reason10 Of course it hasn't. Take a look at this table of poverty rates among OECD countries. Do you imagine for one second that the USA (second worst rate of poverty) has a more extensive welfare state than Norway, Denmark, Canada, or practically any other country in the table?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/233910/poverty-rates-in-oecd-countries/

Yes, relative poverty will increase if a greater share of the economic pie goes to the rich rather than the poor. That's just simple maths I'm afraid, even in America 🤷‍♀

@AuRevoir That is an opinion piece from a politician, not a credible news source. I share some of the same sentiments, but clearly scientific funding is not an example of wealth redistribution, so I am not sure why you you refer to it. Well over half the federal budget is spent on social security, medicare, pensions, veterans benefits, and other important funding mandated by law to alleviate poverty. It is not discretionary or at the whim of a transient politician, as Trump is now discovering. But to achieve Musk's ridiculous boasts, these areas of funding will eventually be affected. So how exactly does denying basic healthcare to a minimum wage worker enhance her economic prospects?

@SunshineGirl So now you will criticize every democrat speech and state it as an opinion piece, and that they

And yes it is an example of wealth redistribution. That’s just a complete lie to say it’s not. So my question is, why are you lying?

“What did we do with the tax dollars? Did we balance them well and give them back to the poor?” “No. We gave them to a man that is murdering animals with illogical tests that make no sense. Many of which simply involve cutting off the heads of the animals…” “Oh really, well I suppose the poor will just

He did not earn the $20 billion through private means, such as wealthy investors donating. Or having his own charity program that is being donated to. Without those qualifications involved in attaining those $20 billion. It most definitely classified as tax dollar money which could have been used to help people. But instead is used to kill animals.

And now you attempt to deflect the issue instead of addressing it. So now not only do you lie but attempt to change the topic to a separate category. So are we going to talk about 2 topics now? Or are you going to run away like last time like when I called you out for being a racist?

@AuRevoir A speech given by a politician is not an objective news source, just as that opinion piece was not. You need to exercise critical judgement in deciding what sources to give most weight to.

As I explained above, more than half of federal funding is allocated to schemes that alleviate poverty. I am glad you purport to to be concerned about the plight of the poor and I am sure you will recognise that income tax (which barely affects the pockets of the poorest 30% in society) is the most equitable way of covering this spending. But governments do have other priorities to fund as well (transport, infrastructure, safety, etc). If you feel a particular area of spending is wasteful or unnecessary, fine. Just clearly identify it and give your reasons. But it is not smart to portray all government spending as unneccessary just because you oppose animal research.

@SunshineGirl Actually, the income tax is a joke. If you want a FAIR tax, scrap the income tax and make it a national sales tax, ONE RATE for everyone.

At a sales tax of 5 percent, a homeless street bum buys a $5 bottle of hooch and pays 25 cents tax.

A CEO buys a $150,000 Mercedes S class Sedan and pays $7500.

25 cents versus $7500.

Even your inferior blue state public schools should have taught you the higher number.

As far as government spending, let's remember it was the DemoKKKrats who first spent in deficit during peacetime. FDR's WELFARE STATE was the first hit on borrowed money without a war. It was such a disaster, he had to LIE his way into a European shooting war, to bail the country out of the problems his policies caused.

Democrats have been spending our grandchildren's 90 percent income taxes ever since.

And according to the Kerrey Danforth Report, THAT disaster is going to hit the country in 2030.

By then, the ONLY government item will be INTEREST on SOCIAL SECURITY, and taxes will be at 90 PERCENT ACROSS THE BOARD.

@AuRevoir id expect itd be suplemented by the ERS and te IRS' role at least halved. Until the outstanding debt is paid then maybe the IRS could be discontonued?

@AuRevoir
The top 50% of earners in the USA pay 97% of income taxes. If you don't earn or are below a threshold (around 30% of Americans), you pay nothing. Compare this to a flat rate sales tax where everyone pays the same on taxed goods, irrespective of their ability to pay. This is fantasy economics that penalises the poor for daring to exist and negatively impacts demand. Sales taxes are also expensive to administer and vulnerable to widespread fraud and evasion (which is presumably why the rich support them).

@AuRevoir Workers = MAGAt's of course.

@zonavar68 i thought you were red pill, why are you against MAGA

@uikakarotuevegeta The concepts are sound - the executors of the concepts are not sound. btw I have no idea what you mean by 'red pill'.

@zonavar68 MGTOW = red pill

@uikakarotuevegeta howso? Ive chosen to not pursue dating or sexual attraction relationships anymore but never took any pills to make me arrive at that free choice. Also why does the colour of the hypothetical pill matter?

@zonavar68 because red pill is associated with the manosphere, which is commonly affiliated with right wing politics and sometimes apolitical/centrism

Red Pill is being awake of the truth but being realistic; White Pill would be optimistic about it, while Black Pill is pessimistic; Blue Pill would be ignorant of the truth and Purple is in between Red and Blue

there's also other pills like pink (feminism) and orange (cryptocurrency), but they're mostly irrelevant

@SunshineGirl Your logic is so strange. Basically you want to believe it’s okay to tax your own rich citizens, who there are far less of in the world. Than the outside source of the global citizens who use your country to make their massive profits, which tariffs would allow.

It’s just hypocritical. I’m done arguing at this point. If you don’t see the blatant and obvious double standards you’re setting within your own logic. Then I’m not even going to bother with further engagement.

Tax a lower supply of the worlds rich because they’re your own citizens at extortionate levels of income taxes- “Yes! Very good! Tax them more!”

Tax the rest of the worlds rich which use the healthiest marketplace in the world known as America, who constantly use it to gain their wealth, by applying reasonable tariffs, which are half of the cost of your own populaces income tax percentages- “No! That’s very bad! They should be allowed to make that money without the tariff! Only if you live in America should you be taxed that way!”

Your argument is just set in double standards.

@AuRevoir In taxation terms there is no such entity as a "global citizen". You are registered to pay personal taxes in one jurisdiction and that is the end of the matter.

Strange fact: many rich people made their fortunes from international trade.

Quite how you managed to pivot a discussion about the justice of income tax to the poorest in society to Trump's bizarre theories on tariffs is beyond me 🤔