Texas redistributes money from poor to rich

I JUST noticed that her avatar moves - damn thing made me jump a bit!

Something the Dog Said wrote: Why are you not drawing attention to the fact that a poor person is paying 12% of their income compared to a rich person only paying 3%? I realize this is your typical bait and switch to hide that you prefer being a tool for the rich and corporate elite, but even your professed savior saw the fallacy in your argument.

The way you framed the initial argument is proof positive that figures don't lie but liars figure. Of course those in the lowest income brackets pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than those in the highest bracket do. They not only pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes, they also pay a higher percentage of their income for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, entertainment and every other spending category. This does not establish, however, that the poor are paying an undue share of the tax burden in Texas since the amalgamated earnings of the lowest 20% likely do not represent anywhere near the amalgamated earnings of the top 1% - which is what the figure I have repeatedly asked you for, and you have declined to provide (either because it wasn't included in the email your talking point came from or you don't wish to provide evidence which refutes your premise), would demonstrate if you provided it.

Your attempted intrigue has been exposed for what it was Dog. Your best bet at this point is to lick your wounds, tuck your tail between your legs and retire from the field.

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Why are you not drawing attention to the fact that a poor person is paying 12% of their income compared to a rich person only paying 3%? I realize this is your typical bait and switch to hide that you prefer being a tool for the rich and corporate elite, but even your professed savior saw the fallacy in your argument.

The way you framed the initial argument is proof positive that figures don't lie but liars figure. Of course those in the lowest income brackets pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than those in the highest bracket do. They not only pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes, they also pay a higher percentage of their income for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, entertainment and every other spending category. This does not establish, however, that the poor are paying an undue share of the tax burden in Texas since the amalgamated earnings of the lowest 20% likely do not represent anywhere near the amalgamated earnings of the top 1% - which is what the figure I have repeatedly asked you for, and you have declined to provide (either because it wasn't included in the email your talking point came from or you don't wish to provide evidence which refutes your premise), would demonstrate if you provided it.

Your attempted intrigue has been exposed for what it was Dog. Your best bet at this point is to lick your wounds, tuck your tail between your legs and retire from the field.

Nice try, but your BS is still BS. The facts are simple. The lower income residents in Texas pay a higher share of their income in state taxes than residents in any other state while the wealthiest residents pay a lower share of their income in state taxes than any other state. Again, my earlier post pointed out that lower income (including the middle class) pay 12% of their income in state taxes while the wealthiest pay only 3%. You can keep obfuscating with your BS, but the facts speak for themselves. Even Jesus Christ pointed out the fallacy of your argument alleging that it is the total amount paid rather than the percentage of income.

And He sat down opposite the treasury, and began observing how the multitude were putting money into the treasury; and many rich people were putting in large sums. And a poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which amount to a cent. And calling His disciples to Him, He said to them, "Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the contributors to the treasury; for they all put in out of their surplus, but she, out of her poverty, put in all she owned, all she had to live on." ( Mark 12:41-44)

Should have retired from the field before stepping into the minefield Dog. You sure you want to argue theology now? Let me ask of you a few questions regarding the scripture you have provided and we shall see whether or not you wish to continue in your deceptions.

Are you familiar at all with the passage that you quoted? Where was Jesus when He was teaching with the passage you quoted? Which treasury was He referring to? What were the other parables that preceded and followed your passage, and what light do they shine on this particular teaching?

I will answer the questions I posed for you, because if you knew of what you speak you would not have engaged in such a transparent misrepresentation. The Scripture that you provided took place in the the temple. The treasury that is referenced is not Caesar's treasury, so your obvious lie in attempting to link the event to the treasury of the state fails at the outset. Just prior to the passage that you quote, Jesus was asked by the hypocritical Pharisees and Herodians, attempting to entrap Him, as He had done to them in Chapter 11 when He asked them whether John's baptism was of heaven or of men, if it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not. You no doubt remember His reply to them, do you not?

"Bring me a denarius that I may see it." When it was brought to Him, He asked them, "Whose is this image and inscription?" They answered, "Caesar's." Jesus responded to them, "Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God that which is God's."

That which belongs to Caesar, taxes, is separate from that which belongs to God. The passage which you have provided us clearly makes this point when the poor lady sacrifices to God that which is necessary to sustain her own life. Not to Caesar, to God. An individual sacrifice, an individual act of salvation, an individual act of free will. Not one which was forced upon her by the government, not an act of submission to Caesar's power and authority over her. Collective salvation is not the teaching of Christ Jesus Dog. He teaches us instead that voluntary submission of ourselves to our Creator is what is required of us. It is the individual act of submission to the will of God that allows salvation. It is giving to God of what is necessary rather than what is excess, not to Caesar, not to the government.

Individual acts of charity, not paying taxes for that purpose. Giving individually, not collectively. Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and the imprisoned ourselves, not hiring someone else to do it in our place. When our day of judgment comes before our Creator, it will be an individual judgment, no hiding in a group, no collective anything. I will leave you with the words of Pope Benedict XVI, written many years before he ascended to his current position as the Vicar of Christ on earth, in his book "Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions"

Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic.

We are called to do the work of God individually Dog, not collectively. Collective salvation, collective redemption, is pure Marxism - class warfare raised to a whole new level.

Jesus was a liberal. He fed the multitudes for free... (and had the first FREE public health clinic!) It must drive you nuts.

WTH would you know about Jesus?

It would appear that I know more than the conservatives.

interesting..show me where Jesus supports abortions, and gay marriages, just to name a few...

Show me where he opposes them.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

BearMtnHIB wrote: Texas created 40% of all the new jobs created last year- they are doing somthing right because businesses are leaving other states and moving to Texas and they are looking for employees.

No income taxes - that's one reason Texas is creating jobs while others are losing jobs.

I'm not a Texan, but you gotta admit the economy is better there than just about anywhere else in the USA.

The stimulus package paid for most of the net gain in jobs in Texas, which were primarily public sector jobs. The unemployment rate in Texas is higher than 25 other states, including California and Massachusetts (Texas has the highest rate of uninsured, compared to almost universal coverage in Massachusetts which has a lower unemployment rate than Texas, and a higher per capita). You might want to check your facts.

The Economist addressed the high Texas unemployment rate, still a percentage point below national numbers, Texas is adding a lot of population, because people are moving there for jobs.

Stimulus? How about high oil prices which has created good paying jobs, the rumour is that these are all low paying service jobs but actually Texas's wages are median to the rest of the country.