- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Ro Khanna: ‘It’s not my money. It’s my wife’s pre marriage. And I am for taxing it more.’
Posted on 12/28/25 at 6:42 pm
Posted on 12/28/25 at 6:42 pm
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. 
This post was edited on 12/28/25 at 6:44 pm
8
Posted on 12/28/25 at 6:46 pm to hawgfaninc
Did someone remind Ro that there was nothing preventing his wife from voluntarily paying more than what she is required to pay.
Posted on 12/28/25 at 7:06 pm to hawgfaninc
So he's in favor of taxing other people's money
Posted on 12/28/25 at 7:08 pm to hawgfaninc
who
Posted on 12/28/25 at 7:09 pm to The Egg
Well yeah he is a Dem.
Posted on 12/28/25 at 7:10 pm to udtiger
quote:
Did someone remind Ro that there was nothing preventing his wife from voluntarily paying more than what she is required to pay.
This is very common faulty logic. RK can be in favor of a wealth tax but opposed to a wealth tax only on him. Here’s why that is not hypocrisy. In the first case RK pays X and the state collects let’s say 1,000X. RK thinks, “It’s worth me paying X so the state can get 1,000X.” In the second case RK pays X and the state collects only X, and RK thinks, “It’s not worth paying X when the state only gets X.”
Posted on 12/28/25 at 7:32 pm to Penrod
quote:
RK can be in favor of a wealth tax but opposed to a wealth tax only on him.
Talk about faulty logic.
There currently is no wealth tax.
There is no prohibition on paying a greater amount than required.
Instead of voluntarily paying extra, he seeks to impose an obligation on everyone.
It is the height of hypocrisy.
This post was edited on 12/28/25 at 7:43 pm
Posted on 12/28/25 at 7:35 pm to hawgfaninc
quote:
It's my wife's
Tax my Bytch up?
Posted on 12/28/25 at 7:35 pm to hawgfaninc
He should just voluntarily donate it.
Posted on 12/28/25 at 7:41 pm to udtiger
quote:
Instead of voluntarily paying extra, he seeks to impose an obligation on everyone.
It is the height of hypocrisy.
I’m sorry. I can’t explain it any more clearly than I already did. Anyone with an open mind and average intelligence will find my previous post unassailable.
Posted on 12/28/25 at 7:42 pm to hawgfaninc
He’s lying of course
Posted on 12/28/25 at 7:47 pm to Penrod
quote:
I’m sorry. I can’t explain it any more clearly than I already did. Anyone with an open mind and average intelligence will find my previous post unassailable
Enjoy sniffing your own farts. Your explanation is horseshite and is based on the faulty premise that voluntarily paying greater than required is the equivalent of a wealth tax imposed on a single person.
Posted on 12/28/25 at 7:48 pm to Penrod
quote:
Anyone with an open mind and average intelligence will find my previous post unassailable.
I’m considering donating to charity, but I will only donate if everyone donates.
Posted on 12/28/25 at 7:51 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
I’m considering donating to charity, but I will only donate if everyone donates.
There is a very common method of charitable giving along those lines. It’s how Charlie Kirk got his big funding start. A potential donor will say, “I’ll donate X amount but only if you raise X, or maybe 2X, elsewhere. So you see, in your glibness you nearly stumbled into a common scenario.
Posted on 12/28/25 at 7:54 pm to udtiger
quote:
Your explanation is horseshite and is based on the faulty premise that voluntarily paying greater than required is the equivalent of a wealth tax imposed on a single person.
It clearly shows why a person would consider communal giving a good value but simply donating, without any multiplying effect, a bad deal. Anyway, I specified that it took an open mind and average intelligence. Thanks for outing yourself.
Posted on 12/28/25 at 7:54 pm to Penrod
It’s a method, but not a common method.
If someone thinks it’s right to give, they should do it regardless of what others do.
If someone thinks it’s right to give, they should do it regardless of what others do.
Posted on 12/28/25 at 7:55 pm to Penrod
quote:
There is a very common method of charitable giving along those lines. It’s how Charlie Kirk got his big funding start. A potential donor will say, “I’ll donate X amount but only if you raise X, or maybe 2X, elsewhere. So you see, in your glibness you nearly stumbled into a common scenario.
Ro needs to use this method to get the very wealthy to contribute to the state, instead of having the state forcibly take the funds under threat.
quote:
It’s very common among high net worth donors.
Awesome, then there’s no need for the state to confiscate wealth.
This post was edited on 12/28/25 at 7:59 pm
Posted on 12/28/25 at 7:55 pm to Penrod
quote:
communal giving
The fact you use this phrase to describe taxes demonstrates you are a fricking moron.
Posted on 12/28/25 at 7:57 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
It’s a method, but not a common method.
It’s very common among high net worth donors. I think it’s kind of silly.
Posted on 12/28/25 at 7:58 pm to udtiger
Poor udtiger.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News