Search Results: tax dollars

What i realize is that a lot of men get into fruitless relationships. the problem for men a lot of times is in fact not the time spent with the person but the money they put out. while girls can be undisided and are allowed to change their mind the money and time makes it a lot harder for men. Plus the only time women or men in some cases spend money on the other person is if the already want to be with them; in other words they have already made up their minds about the relationship ( not really dating). this loss puts men behide finacially and cripples the male sex. Moving on from relationships and trying to be finacial stable is therefore a lot harder for men. wemon often act like the bad habbits we have as men are because of are sex when infact it is because they things we do to accommodate them. But they are far from relizing that and carring. rather then put up with the crap and hope they change think we should do something to protect/ preserve ourselves So i am proposing an idea for a bill. This bill (insert clever name) will be disgned so that the government gives men a tax write off for the money they spend on dates so that men can recover finacially; since they won't legalize prostitution.

Now for this to work there of course has to be guide lines or rules. otherwise anyone can try to get this write off dishonestly. I came up with a few

-proof of expenses will be covered with proof of purchases or receipts

-all legitimate proof of purchases must come from the same year they file their taxes

-pictures of the women they dated can be used as proof-iffy on this one

- expenses must exceed five hundred dollars.

- money spent on her looks and health count as well.

If anyone can think of any more post them in the comments

also i am including a poll so that i can include one because the messege keeps coming up and saying the post is either to long or short. What the heck is wrong with this thing. its a bug they need to fix. what the hell is wrong with this thi

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ark-builder-in-kentucky-is-buoyed-by-court-ruling-1454276163
The current governor supports this while he does not support spending 400,000 for the disable. Do you see a problem with this? Feel free to check out the people, giraffes and dinosaurs on the ark on your next visit. Of course they all existed at the same time right? And why not use tax dollars to support this?
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/28/bevin-vetoes-400000-disabled/83655748/

An Oxfam report found here: https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/bp210-economy-one-percent-tax-havens-180116-en_0.pdf , shows that 62 of the world's richest people (53 are men) have more money than 3.6 billion of the poorest in the world.

What's worse is that those 62 people's incomes have increased by 44% - over half-a-trillion dollars - while the poorest in the world have seen their incomes drop by over a trillion dollars. All of this happened since 2010.

That's a mind-boggling statistic, in my opinion, and it's worth pointing out that the more money the most wealthy among us accumulate, the less wealth there is to go around, which is probably why you see their incomes dropping by twice as much as the wealthiest has increased.

And once they obtain so much money, they can literally purchase legislation that makes it more difficult for upward mobility, and also more difficult for those to lose any of their money.

So much for trickle-down economics, right? The claim is that when the rich have money, they produce jobs (which is a lie), but we've been watching steady growth of incomes for wealthy people, but the jobs market is very stagnant and the jobs that are being produced don't pay enough to be considered 'liveable'.

Do you believe this is a problem? I certainly do.