THIS is "oppression" and "discrimination."

[JNaylor]

So what you're saying then, is that he wants to raise everyone's taxes the same amount? A guy who makes 250,000 will be taxed at the same rate as the guy who makes 3,000,000,000 a year?

No jus that they are both going up. I haven't heard what the rates will be but I think they are talking about going back to where they were in the 90's. So whatever rate you would paid at your income level in the 90's you would pay today but only if you make over $250K

 

[JNaylor]

Ummm... Put down the Fox News koolaid and step away from the pitcher.

Al Gore doesn't own a private jet.

Nice try though.

I don't know wether he owns one or not but I do know that he spends a lot of time flying around in one. Its funny that that is the only thing about that argument that you were able to dispute.

 

[teknight]

I don't know wether he owns one or not but I do know that he spends a lot of time flying around in one. Its funny that that is the only thing about that argument that you were able to dispute.

You do realize that rising tax rates would affect the proponents of these measures as well, don't you?

And, if the jet's irrelevant, why'd you bring it up?

 

[JNaylor]

You do realize that rising tax rates would affect the proponents of these measures as well, don't you?

And, if the jet's irrelevant, why'd you bring it up?

The Jet is very relevant, it illustrates the hypocrisy of limosine liberals that want the rest of the world to go back to the horse and buggy era to save the planet while people like Barbara Streisand maintain a 30,000 square foot air conditioned building for her fur collection and Arianna Huffington and Al Gore fly around on private jets. It doesn't matter who owns the jet its who is using the jet. I just get a little tired of these wealthy politicians talking about "shared sacrifice" while they sacrifice nothing.

These rising tax rates will effect everyone. Thats the point I'm trying to make. All this class warfare rhetoric "stick it to the rich" garbage. People don't realize if they get their way and really put it to the rich its going to be the little guy that takes it in the ass. Unemployment will be higher and everything will cost more. The rich will still be rich but the poor will be poorer.

 

[Stella_Omega]

No jus that they are both going up. I haven't heard what the rates will be but I think they are talking about going back to where they were in the 90's. So whatever rate you would paid at your income level in the 90's you would pay today but only if you make over $250K

Are they going up a few pennies, for the mom and pop class, or are they going up hundreds of dollars?

I can tell that you have NOT read the links, and you don't actually intend to. I am tired of walking you so gently through the thought processes you should be using on your own. You're supposed to be a methematician, right? use your brain! Think this shit out!

These rising tax rates will effect everyone. Thats the point I'm trying to make. All this class warfare rhetoric "stick it to the rich" garbage. People don't realize if they get their way and really put it to the rich its going to be the little guy that takes it in the ass. Unemployment will be higher and everything will cost more. The rich will still be rich but the poor will be poorer.

Too late. Unimployment is incredibly high right NOW. I have been unimployed for nearly a year, living onodd jobs and entreprenurism. I can't get a job in my old field, because the companies ONLY HIRE PEOPLE WHO ALREADY HAVE JOBS.

People don't realise that if we really put it to the rich, a whole lot of money will come back into circulation. THE SUPERRICH DON'T SPEND MONEY. Why do you think the poor are poorer? Because there is no trickle down.

The rich ARE richer, the middle class is now poor, the poor are very close to rioting. Where the fuck are you looking, dude? Wake up!

 

[teknight]

The Jet is very relevant, it illustrates the hypocrisy of limosine liberals that want the rest of the world to go back to the horse and buggy era to save the planet while people like Barbara Streisand maintain a 30,000 square foot air conditioned building for her fur collection and Arianna Huffington and Al Gore fly around on private jets. It doesn't matter who owns the jet its who is using the jet. I just get a little tired of these wealthy politicians talking about "shared sacrifice" while they sacrifice nothing.

These rising tax rates will effect everyone. Thats the point I'm trying to make. All this class warfare rhetoric "stick it to the rich" garbage. People don't realize if they get their way and really put it to the rich its going to be the little guy that takes it in the ass. Unemployment will be higher and everything will cost more. The rich will still be rich but the poor will be poorer.

But, you're wrong, you see:
Back in the 70s, the middle class was larger, and made more money than it does today. The rich were getting POUNDED with taxes- and I mean, rape in a back alley kinda pounded, without a condom, not slow tender lovin' kinda pounded. Ever since, the middle class has shrunk, the opportunity to move up in the social ranks has shrunk, middle class incomes have shrunk, while the tax rates on the rich and super rich have gone down. Now, I'm not gonna be a stupid dick and claim causation, but I will claim correlation. Trickle down is BS.

Also, you missed my point- Barbara Streisand will pay more in taxes too, along with all the others of the group of people you love to hate.

Are you advocating trickle down economics?

ETA: sort of off topic, but related: do you realize that the Chinese are outsourcing (blue collar) jobs to the US?

 

[SubmissiveBrat]

Our whole fed tax structure is a climatic cluster fuck of epic proportions. Please excuse my language but it's true. It is so complex that you can talk to 12 different IRS agents on one topic and get 12 different answers. There are far to many loop holes an exceptions along with a gaggle of other crap. The right hand don't know what the left is doing. We need a complete overhaul of the tax structure. I think if you want it to be fair make a flat percentage tax across the board. This seems fair to me.

 

[girlsmiley]

But, you're wrong, you see:
Back in the 70s, the middle class was larger, and made more money than it does today. The rich were getting POUNDED with taxes- and I mean, rape in a back alley kinda pounded, without a condom, not slow tender lovin' kinda pounded.

This is awesome.

 

[Stella_Omega]

But, you're wrong, you see:
Back in the 70s, the middle class was larger, and made more money than it does today. The rich were getting POUNDED with taxes- and I mean, rape in a back alley kinda pounded, without a condom, not slow tender lovin' kinda pounded. Ever since, the middle class has shrunk, the opportunity to move up in the social ranks has shrunk, middle class incomes have shrunk, while the tax rates on the rich and super rich have gone down. Now, I'm not gonna be a stupid dick and claim causation, but I will claim correlation. Trickle down is BS.

Also, you missed my point- Barbara Streisand will pay more in taxes too, along with all the others of the group of people you love to hate.

Are you advocating trickle down economics?

ETA: sort of off topic, but related: do you realize that the Chinese are outsourcing (blue collar) jobs to the US?

The upper class, according to this handy-dandy graph, saw their highest tax rates in 45-- that was the War.
The rates went down by the sixties, and then Nixon took them down further, and they've been declining steadily since then-- andthings have gotten worse for every one else.

http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-taxrate_3.png

 

[Safe_Bet]

Our whole fed tax structure is a climatic cluster fuck of epic proportions. Please excuse my language but it's true. It is so complex that you can talk to 12 different IRS agents on one topic and get 12 different answers. There are far to many loop holes an exceptions along with a gaggle of other crap. The right hand don't know what the left is doing. We need a complete overhaul of the tax structure. I think if you want it to be fair make a flat percentage tax across the board. This seems fair to me.

Nope. You need to do some rethinking I'm afraid. The only people a flat tax is fair to is the rich. You need to realize that to the poor and the lower middle class a dollar is a lot more money then it is to a person who owns three homes and a yacht.

If you chafe everyone a 10% flat tax, just to pick an easy number, the 2 grand will be MUCH harder to bear on a family that makes $20 grand, then the 200 grand will be for a family that made $2 million. It's the same percentage, but the difference is one family can't afford medicine and the other can't afford a 4th home.

It's a matter of economy of scale and expendable income after expenses. That's why a progressive tax rate was originally implemented.

Now I DO agree with redoing the tax codes. It's a travesty when guys like Warren Buffet can brag that he paid less in taxes then his secretary.

 

[clio711]

Nope. You need to do some rethinking I'm afraid. The only people a flat tax is fair to is the rich. You need to realize that to the poor and the lower middle class a dollar is a lot more money then it is to a person who owns three homes and a yacht.

If you chafe everyone a 10% flat tax, just to pick an easy number, the 2 grand will be MUCH harder to bear on a family that makes $20 grand, then the 200 grand will be for a family that made $2 million. It's the same percentage, but the difference is one family can't afford medicine and the other can't afford a 4th home.

It's a matter of economy of scale and expendable income after expenses. That's why a progressive tax rate was originally implemented.

Now I DO agree with redoing the tax codes. It's a travesty when guys like Warren Buffet can brag that he paid less in taxes then his secretary.

This is my argument against a flat tax as well. Nicely put.

 

[teknight]

The upper class, according to this handy-dandy graph, saw their highest tax rates in 45-- that was the War.
The rates went down by the sixties, and then Nixon took them down further, and they've been declining steadily since then-- andthings have gotten worse for every one else.

http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-taxrate_3.png

Bah! Why let facts get in the way of a narrative that includes back alley pounding?
(Sowwee)

 

[teknight]

Now I DO agree with redoing the tax codes. It's a travesty when guys like Warren Buffet can brag that he paid less in taxes then his secretary.

He wasn't bragging.

 

[clio711]

He wasn't bragging.

Thanks for the link.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yesterday, Mitt Romney told a crowd in Iowa that "Corporations are people."

Romney made his millions leading a private equity firm that bought up companies, closed plants and killed American jobs. The workers who lost their jobs are people. The corporation that cost them those jobs is not.

 

[clio711]

Yesterday, Mitt Romney told a crowd in Iowa that "Corporations are people."

Romney made his millions leading a private equity firm that bought up companies, closed plants and killed American jobs. The workers who lost their jobs are people. The corporation that cost them those jobs is not.

You know, Romney's quote reminds me a little of "soylent green is people"

 

[RjThoughts]

Our whole fed tax structure is a climatic cluster fuck of epic proportions. Please excuse my language but it's true. It is so complex that you can talk to 12 different IRS agents on one topic and get 12 different answers. There are far to many loop holes an exceptions along with a gaggle of other crap. The right hand don't know what the left is doing. We need a complete overhaul of the tax structure. I think if you want it to be fair make a flat percentage tax across the board. This seems fair to me.

Tell me about it! I can't take off the cost of my son's prep school tuition, though the Super and Uber rich can. Next year, I will be able to tax off the cost of his college tuition, that is, if Boner, err Boehner and his Neo-Con crybabies don't eliminate that.

 

[JNaylor]

Yesterday, Mitt Romney told a crowd in Iowa that "Corporations are people."

Romney made his millions leading a private equity firm that bought up companies, closed plants and killed American jobs. The workers who lost their jobs are people. The corporation that cost them those jobs is not.

I think the point he was making isn't that corporations are people but that the money within corporations go to people. A corporation may have a low tax rate, although our corporate tax rates are the highest in the world, but when the corporation pays out money it goes to people, who then pay income taxes on that money. People love to hate corporations but its just a legal status. The corporation doesn't sit on its private yacht sipping champagne, the people that own the corporation do. Even if a corporation pays another corporation then the poeple who own the 2nd corporation will eventually use it to pay expenses or take it as income at which time they will pay taxes on it.

Companies incorporate to protect their assets from lawsuits. If you operate as a sole proprieter then you leave your business assets and your personal assets vulnerable if you are ever sued. Corporations are owned by people however and thats what he was saying.

 

[JNaylor]

But, you're wrong, you see:
Back in the 70s, the middle class was larger, and made more money than it does today. The rich were getting POUNDED with taxes- and I mean, rape in a back alley kinda pounded, without a condom, not slow tender lovin' kinda pounded. Ever since, the middle class has shrunk, the opportunity to move up in the social ranks has shrunk, middle class incomes have shrunk, while the tax rates on the rich and super rich have gone down. Now, I'm not gonna be a stupid dick and claim causation, but I will claim correlation. Trickle down is BS.

Also, you missed my point- Barbara Streisand will pay more in taxes too, along with all the others of the group of people you love to hate.

Are you advocating trickle down economics?

ETA: sort of off topic, but related: do you realize that the Chinese are outsourcing (blue collar) jobs to the US?

Your right about the 70's. The top tax rate was something like 79%. Imagine making $1,000.00 and having the government taking $790.00 from it leaving you with $210.00.

Unemplyment was high, gas prices were high, interest rates were around 21%, we had inflation (thank you Jimmy carter), the Reagan got elected, lowered the top tax rate to something like 39% and created 20,000,000 jobs and never spent one second, let alone three years, crying because HE inherited a bad economy, one far worse than what Obama inherited. I know your going to say "But the deficit, what about the deficit" His deficit was in the Billions and for that money he destroyed the soviet union, ended the cold war and brought down the Berlin wall. What does Obama have to show for the MULTI-TRILLION dollar deficit he has helped to create as a senator and a president. The economy was pretty damn good until the democrats got control of congress in 2006 and it went downhill from there.

I'm not a defender of trickle down because I have not studied economics but I am also not in favor of the government redistributing wealth by taking from one group and giving to another. If you confiscated enough money from the rich people to give every poor person in the USA $100,000.00 the poor would spend that money and within 6 months to a year and it would be back in the hands of the Rich anyway and the poor would be right back where they were before they got the money. If you doubt me think of this, there are 300 million people in this country, I don't know exactly but lets say 30% are poor. So that means that we have roughly 100 million poor people for the sake of argument. Over the last 40 years we have taken 3 trillion dollars from the working class and the wealthy and given it to the poor, I don't know what that works out to per person but probably far more than $100,000.00 and we only have more poor people than ever to show for it. Social programs don't work unless they are for the truly needy. We have generations of families that have been on one form of welfare or another who have never worked. People need incentives to work not sit on thier butts. But you all are advocating that we destroy the one group of peope that can give us jobs. They did that in South Africa and that didn't work out real well.

 

[RjThoughts]

Your right about the 70's. The top tax rate was something like 79%. Imagine making $1,000.00 and having the government taking $790.00 from it leaving you with $210.00.

Unemplyment was high, gas prices were high, interest rates were around 21%, we had inflation (thank you Jimmy carter), the Reagan got elected, lowered the top tax rate to something like 39% and created 20,000,000 jobs and never spent one second, let alone three years, crying because HE inherited a bad economy, one far worse than what Obama inherited. I know your going to say "But the deficit, what about the deficit" His deficit was in the Billions and for that money he destroyed the soviet union, ended the cold war and brought down the Berlin wall. What does Obama have to show for the MULTI-TRILLION dollar deficit he has helped to create as a senator and a president. The economy was pretty damn good until the democrats got control of congress in 2006 and it went downhill from there.

I'm not a defender of trickle down because I have not studied economics but I am also not in favor of the government redistributing wealth by taking from one group and giving to another. If you confiscated enough money from the rich people to give every poor person in the USA $100,000.00 the poor would spend that money and within 6 months to a year and it would be back in the hands of the Rich anyway and the poor would be right back where they were before they got the money. If you doubt me think of this, there are 300 million people in this country, I don't know exactly but lets say 30% are poor. So that means that we have roughly 100 million poor people for the sake of argument. Over the last 40 years we have taken 3 trillion dollars from the working class and the wealthy and given it to the poor, I don't know what that works out to per person but probably far more than $100,000.00 and we only have more poor people than ever to show for it. Social programs don't work unless they are for the truly needy. We have generations of families that have been on one form of welfare or another who have never worked. People need incentives to work not sit on thier butts. But you all are advocating that we destroy the one group of peope that can give us jobs. They did that in South Africa and that didn't work out real well.

You haven't studied economics, that shows!!! Because you ARE defending trickled-on theory. Stop watching Faux Noise, and read!!!!!

People like your ilk disgust me. Bemoan welfare, call those that receive it lazy. Generations of welfare? OMFG!!! The MOST discriminated people in this country are Native Americans, the FIRST NATIONS!! They were moved to reservations. They've been denied help for generations...and guess what? They RARELY receive welfare!!!

God, your undereducation is showing!! Get off the computer, go to a library and READ!!! Start thinking for yourself!!!!

 

[RjThoughts]

Your right about the 70's. The top tax rate was something like 79%. Imagine making $1,000.00 and having the government taking $790.00 from it leaving you with $210.00.

Unemplyment was high, gas prices were high, interest rates were around 21%, we had inflation (thank you Jimmy carter), the Reagan got elected, lowered the top tax rate to something like 39% and created 20,000,000 jobs and never spent one second, let alone three years, crying because HE inherited a bad economy, one far worse than what Obama inherited. I know your going to say "But the deficit, what about the deficit" His deficit was in the Billions and for that money he destroyed the soviet union, ended the cold war and brought down the Berlin wall. What does Obama have to show for the MULTI-TRILLION dollar deficit he has helped to create as a senator and a president. The economy was pretty damn good until the democrats got control of congress in 2006 and it went downhill from there.

I'm not a defender of trickle down because I have not studied economics but I am also not in favor of the government redistributing wealth by taking from one group and giving to another. If you confiscated enough money from the rich people to give every poor person in the USA $100,000.00 the poor would spend that money and within 6 months to a year and it would be back in the hands of the Rich anyway and the poor would be right back where they were before they got the money. If you doubt me think of this, there are 300 million people in this country, I don't know exactly but lets say 30% are poor. So that means that we have roughly 100 million poor people for the sake of argument. Over the last 40 years we have taken 3 trillion dollars from the working class and the wealthy and given it to the poor, I don't know what that works out to per person but probably far more than $100,000.00 and we only have more poor people than ever to show for it. Social programs don't work unless they are for the truly needy. We have generations of families that have been on one form of welfare or another who have never worked. People need incentives to work not sit on thier butts. But you all are advocating that we destroy the one group of peope that can give us jobs. They did that in South Africa and that didn't work out real well.

BULLFUCKING SHIT!!!!


He was ONE of MANY people that helped destroy the Soviet Block.

You know who had MORE to do with this than St Ronnie of Santa Barbara? A union!! Read up on the Solidarity movement!!

You know who had MORE to do with this? Pope John Paul II!!!!

 

[RjThoughts]

And how the hell was this thread corrupted? We went from California trying NOT teaching students BECAUSE of a person's sexuality to economics?

 

[kaboom3d]

Bah! Why let facts get in the way of a narrative that includes back alley pounding?
(Sowwee)

LOL.... Facts??? Who the fuck wants facts??? Good grief, facts might affect your decisions???

 

[RjThoughts]

LOL.... Facts??? Who the fuck wants facts??? Good grief, facts might affect your decisions???

I thoughts facts were those paper thingies that come out of the telephone back in the pre-interwebs days...

 

[JNaylor]

You haven't studied economics, that shows!!! Because you ARE defending trickled-on theory. Stop watching Faux Noise, and read!!!!!

People like your ilk disgust me. Bemoan welfare, call those that receive it lazy. Generations of welfare? OMFG!!! The MOST discriminated people in this country are Native Americans, the FIRST NATIONS!! They were moved to reservations. They've been denied help for generations...and guess what? They RARELY receive welfare!!!

God, your undereducation is showing!! Get off the computer, go to a library and READ!!! Start thinking for yourself!!!!

Just because I haven't studied economics doesn't mean I don't read dickhead. I have read over a thousand books all of which are history and science. I personally know families that are on thier third generation of welfare dumbass I've seen it first hand. To deny that it happens just shows your ignorance. And for the record if you ever spoke that way to my face I'd kick your fucking ass right up around your shoulders. If you can't speak civily to me then fuck you cocksucker I'll speak the same way to you. You are one rude motherfucker.