|
Post by Rainier Wolfcastle on Oct 5, 2011 9:53:25 GMT -5
And from 2003
P.S. Notice Ron Paul ripping the Bush Administration for its spending
|
|
|
Post by poindexter on Oct 5, 2011 10:52:51 GMT -5
Good Lord...what have I done?
|
|
|
Post by Rainier Wolfcastle on Oct 5, 2011 10:56:25 GMT -5
Good Lord...what have I done? You should take the time to watch them. There's not a single unverifiable fact in any of them.
|
|
|
Post by poindexter on Oct 5, 2011 10:57:47 GMT -5
Good Lord...what have I done? You should take the time to watch them. There's not a single unverifiable fact in any of them. RW, I promise I will watch them tonight. And I'll get back to you on those facts!
|
|
|
Post by poindexter on Oct 5, 2011 18:30:26 GMT -5
OK, so that's 25 minutes of my life that I won't get back. I'm ready for my next lesson. I need to know what happens if we all just stop paying taxes. I want to know how we fund things like national defense and interstate highways and bridges and national parks and NASA and NOAH and USGS and USPS and NIH and and and and....let alone the social programs. Are we going to say the states do it? Are we going to say just forget it we don't need these things. Do we just lay everybody off and dismantle entire institutions? What effect will that have on a recovering economy? Where are these people going to work? Who's hiring rocket scientists and geologists and meteorologists and researchers and statisticians and all the other jobs that support these guys? So if the income tax is illegal, where does the federal government get the funding to do what ever little things are left for them to do? Is there another tax that should be levied instead? Are corporate and business taxes illegal too? Ya gotta have a plan for that I hope. What will the state and local taxes do if all these issues fall down to these lower levels? I'm so confused.....
|
|
|
Post by Rainier Wolfcastle on Oct 5, 2011 19:52:49 GMT -5
OK, so that's 25 minutes of my life that I won't get back. I'm ready for my next lesson. I need to know what happens if we all just stop paying taxes. I want to know how we fund things like national defense and interstate highways and bridges and national parks and NASA and NOAH and USGS and USPS and NIH and and and and....let alone the social programs. Are we going to say the states do it? Are we going to say just forget it we don't need these things. Do we just lay everybody off and dismantle entire institutions? What effect will that have on a recovering economy? Where are these people going to work? Who's hiring rocket scientists and geologists and meteorologists and researchers and statisticians and all the other jobs that support these guys? So if the income tax is illegal, where does the federal government get the funding to do what ever little things are left for them to do? Is there another tax that should be levied instead? Are corporate and business taxes illegal too? Ya gotta have a plan for that I hope. What will the state and local taxes do if all these issues fall down to these lower levels? I'm so confused..... Well, considering %49 of of households pay no federal income tax at all what are you worried about? The top %1 of earners pay about %38 of all income taxes while the bottom %50 paid only about %3. Does this seem like a fair and equitable system to you? Corporate and Business taxes are fine and permissible in the Constitution. Replacing the income tax with a national sales tax would do the trick. Easy as pie. What's next?
|
|
|
Post by poindexter on Oct 5, 2011 20:48:03 GMT -5
This shit drives me crazy!
49 percent. That’s the portion of American households that owe no income tax for 2010. The number is up from 38 percent in 2007. 49 percent has become shorthand for the idea that the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole. Neither one of those ideas is true. They rely on a cleverly selective reading of the facts. So does the 49 percent number. Over the last 30 years, rates have fallen more for the wealthy, and especially the very wealthy, than for any other group. At the same time, their incomes have soared, and the incomes of most workers have grown only moderately faster than inflation. So a much greater share of income is now concentrated at the top of the distribution, while each dollar there is taxed less than it once was. The top 1 percent control more than 40 percent of the wealth in the America, while the bottom 80 percent control just 7 percent. Thats the biggest imbalance since the big one in '29.
No. It does not seem like a fair and equitable system. But neither does the national sales tax. A national sales tax is essentially a tax on consumption. Since low income families spend almost every penny they earn on things they need to survive (like refrigerators for shits sake Mr. Steve Doocey), they would pay a higher percent of their earnings in taxes. Higher income families could afford to put a portion of their earnings into savings investments.
So now what? Where's the middle ground. Where's the balance point and how do we get there?
|
|
|
Post by lifesaver on Oct 5, 2011 21:08:07 GMT -5
This shit drives me crazy! 49 percent. That’s the portion of American households that owe no income tax for 2010. The number is up from 38 percent in 2007. 49 percent has become shorthand for the idea that the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole. Neither one of those ideas is true. They rely on a cleverly selective reading of the facts. So does the 49 percent number. Over the last 30 years, rates have fallen more for the wealthy, and especially the very wealthy, than for any other group. At the same time, their incomes have soared, and the incomes of most workers have grown only moderately faster than inflation. So a much greater share of income is now concentrated at the top of the distribution, while each dollar there is taxed less than it once was. The top 1 percent control more than 40 percent of the wealth in the America, while the bottom 80 percent control just 7 percent. Thats the biggest imbalance since the big one in '29. No. It does not seem like a fair and equitable system. But neither does the national sales tax. A national sales tax is essentially a tax on consumption. Since low income families spend almost every penny they earn on things they need to survive (like refrigerators for shits sake Mr. Steve Doocey), they would pay a higher percent of their earnings in taxes. Higher income families could afford to put a portion of their earnings into savings investments. So now what? Where's the middle ground. Where's the balance point and how do we get there? Maybe by no longer having tax sheltered investments?
|
|
|
Post by Rainier Wolfcastle on Oct 5, 2011 22:12:19 GMT -5
This shit drives me crazy! 49 percent. That’s the portion of American households that owe no income tax for 2010. The number is up from 38 percent in 2007. 49 percent has become shorthand for the idea that the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole. Neither one of those ideas is true. They rely on a cleverly selective reading of the facts. So does the 49 percent number. Over the last 30 years, rates have fallen more for the wealthy, and especially the very wealthy, than for any other group. At the same time, their incomes have soared, and the incomes of most workers have grown only moderately faster than inflation. So a much greater share of income is now concentrated at the top of the distribution, while each dollar there is taxed less than it once was. The top 1 percent control more than 40 percent of the wealth in the America, while the bottom 80 percent control just 7 percent. Thats the biggest imbalance since the big one in '29. No. It does not seem like a fair and equitable system. But neither does the national sales tax. A national sales tax is essentially a tax on consumption. Since low income families spend almost every penny they earn on things they need to survive (like refrigerators for shits sake Mr. Steve Doocey), they would pay a higher percent of their earnings in taxes. Higher income families could afford to put a portion of their earnings into savings investments. So now what? Where's the middle ground. Where's the balance point and how do we get there? Flat tax make you happier? You may see a national sales tax as a consumption tax and that's not necessarily a bad analogy. Your refrigerator argument for a national sales tax unfairly burdening the poor only rings true though if both rich and poor are buying the same refrigerator at the same cost. We all know that's not so. One thing I can guarantee you though is that with a national sales tax you won't see anymore 80k Mercedes parked out in front of 60k homes. I want to go back to your comment about corporate taxes for a moment. Forgive me if I'm making an incorrect assumption but you seem to imply that soaking corporations could be a solution to the government's revenue problems. Not so. Corporations cannot pay taxes any more than any other inanimate object can. Only people can pay taxes. You're probably scratching your head right now but follow me for a second. Corporate taxes are offset in any number of ways. Maybe it means fewer employees, or the exportation of jobs to lower wage countries to save on labor costs, or higher prices for the consumer, or a smaller return on investments to shareholders. The list goes on and on. Any way you slice it a corporate tax is always paid by people one way or another. Next we can move onto how the minimum wages actually increase poverty. I am immensly enjoying our discussion though
|
|
|
Post by poindexter on Oct 5, 2011 23:11:44 GMT -5
RW, how many corporations in the US end up paying the 35 percent corporate tax rate. I'm sure we could find out with a simple search, but I'm willing to bet it's a very small number. Corporations and their lawyers have gotten it down to the point where many don't have any tax liability. I wish my business could afford a lawyer like that. Remember the stink over GEs tax credit in the face of how many billions in profit? Google had $5.5 billion in revenue and paid 2.4 percent taxes for 2010. They do it with subsidiaries, transfer pricing, income shifting, and tax havens. Instead of paying taxes they pay dividends to stock holders.
Look at the DOW, in the midst of a huge economic downturn and still above 10k. When the market took a nasty dive in 2008 it was back above 11k in a relatively short time. The index was at 4k just 10 years prior in 1998. Partly because tax liabilities are minimized and dividends to stock holders are maximized. Remember that group of 80 percent with 7 percent of the wealth? I don't think many of them are major stock holders.
How about we say fuck that. Set the corporate tax rate at say, 15 percent and eliminate any loopholes that can't be documented to create jobs. I'm sure that's not the right number, but the lawyers could probably tell us which is.
|
|
|
Post by Rainier Wolfcastle on Oct 6, 2011 6:43:46 GMT -5
I'll never be able to present this as well as my man Milton so I'll leave it to the Nobel Prize winner
I'm not in favor of having no corporate tax I'm simply trying to present the concept that corporate taxes do not come without consequences that effect real people.
Seems our little conversation is pretty popular. Lot of views.
|
|
|
Post by lifesaver on Oct 6, 2011 7:50:22 GMT -5
I know I'm enjoying the discussions.....listening and learning. I remember when we sold our first home to build this one I decided I was going to do our own tax return even though everyone else thought I was crazy for doing it. It turned out fine. My theory was the worst they could tell me was I made a mistake. I think it's a crying shame that a lot of people will pay H&R Block to do a simple tax return in order to get that "rapid refund". Are you kidding me?
I am also in favor of some kind of flat tax or national sales tax in lieu of our present system. A national sales tax would insure that all of the population would be contributors, and a flat tax would probably be a lot simpler to monitor and enforce for those who try to avoid it. Either one, in my opinion, would be better in helping everyone live within their means.
|
|
|
Post by SpellChecker on Oct 6, 2011 15:15:17 GMT -5
49 percent. That’s the portion of American households that owe no income tax for 2010. The number is up from 38 percent in 2007. 49 percent has become shorthand for the idea that the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole. Neither one of those ideas is true. They rely on a cleverly selective reading of the facts. So does the 49 percent number. Who do you believe though. For years the Dem's have been saying the lower class pays all of the taxes and the republicans have been saying its the other way around. Both throw out number and both say their numbers are cherry picked and make the other's claim false.
|
|
|
Post by SpellChecker on Oct 6, 2011 15:23:48 GMT -5
This shit drives me crazy! 49 percent. That’s the portion of American households that owe no income tax for 2010. The number is up from 38 percent in 2007. 49 percent has become shorthand for the idea that the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole. Neither one of those ideas is true. They rely on a cleverly selective reading of the facts. So does the 49 percent number. Over the last 30 years, rates have fallen more for the wealthy, and especially the very wealthy, than for any other group. At the same time, their incomes have soared, and the incomes of most workers have grown only moderately faster than inflation. So a much greater share of income is now concentrated at the top of the distribution, while each dollar there is taxed less than it once was. The top 1 percent control more than 40 percent of the wealth in the America, while the bottom 80 percent control just 7 percent. That's the biggest imbalance since the big one in '29. No. It does not seem like a fair and equitable system. But neither does the national sales tax. A national sales tax is essentially a tax on consumption. Since low income families spend almost every penny they earn on things they need to survive (like refrigerators for shits sake Mr. Steve Doocey), they would pay a higher percent of their earnings in taxes. Higher income families could afford to put a portion of their earnings into savings investments. So now what? Where's the middle ground. Where's the balance point and how do we get there? Maybe by no longer having tax sheltered investments? This is about spot on. Just recently Warren Buffet claimed his secretary was paying more taxes than him in a big spoof to Obama. The thing is if he wasn't hiding,sheltering and investing away his money in every possible way he could to avoid paying his taxes he would be paying more than his secretary. While his stunt was very eye opening and grabbing my thoughts were if he really cared than why wouldn't he pay what he thought his fair share was. The other thing allot of people who get upset about the wealthy being able to shelter allot of their money don't think about is that they could do it as well.............if they could afford to place big chunks of their income into investments and such. My thoughts on this has always been yea they can afford to pay allot in taxes but for example if you made a million $ this year would YOU or I want to wind up giving 48% back and only netting about 500k a year? I know 500k sounds like allot but if you or at least me busted my butt made a successful business or a good investment to make that money I wouldn't want to have to give almost half of it away.
|
|
|
Post by poindexter on Oct 6, 2011 18:45:39 GMT -5
49 percent. That’s the portion of American households that owe no income tax for 2010. The number is up from 38 percent in 2007. 49 percent has become shorthand for the idea that the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole. Neither one of those ideas is true. They rely on a cleverly selective reading of the facts. So does the 49 percent number. Who do you believe though. For years the Dem's have been saying the lower class pays all of the taxes and the republicans have been saying its the other way around. Both throw out number and both say their numbers are cherry picked and make the other's claim false. I think the Dems have been saying it's the middle class that is overly burdened. They don't have the option to evade taxes through clever accounting, yet they don't qualify for tax breaks like earned income credit. You last statement is entirely true, in my opinion. Thus my frustration.
|
|
|
Post by poindexter on Oct 6, 2011 18:49:38 GMT -5
Maybe by no longer having tax sheltered investments? This is about spot on. Just recently Warren Buffet claimed his secretary was paying more taxes than him in a big spoof to Obama. The thing is if he wasn't hiding,sheltering and investing away his money in every possible way he could to avoid paying his taxes he would be paying more than his secretary. While his stunt was very eye opening and grabbing my thoughts were if he really cared than why wouldn't he pay what he thought his fair share was. The other thing allot of people who get upset about the wealthy being able to shelter allot of their money don't think about is that they could do it as well.............if they could afford to place big chunks of their income into investments and such. My thoughts on this has always been yea they can afford to pay allot in taxes but for example if you made a million $ this year would YOU or I want to wind up giving 48% back and only netting about 500k a year? I know 500k sounds like allot but if you or at least me busted my butt made a successful business or a good investment to make that money I wouldn't want to have to give almost half of it away. I certainly don't think we should dissuade people from investing their money. And nobody wants to give away their hard-earned money. I don't mind paying my fair share when I know it's going to be put to good use.
|
|
|
Post by SpellChecker on Oct 6, 2011 19:52:08 GMT -5
This is about spot on. Just recently Warren Buffet claimed his secretary was paying more taxes than him in a big spoof to Obama. The thing is if he wasn't hiding,sheltering and investing away his money in every possible way he could to avoid paying his taxes he would be paying more than his secretary. While his stunt was very eye opening and grabbing my thoughts were if he really cared than why wouldn't he pay what he thought his fair share was. The other thing allot of people who get upset about the wealthy being able to shelter allot of their money don't think about is that they could do it as well.............if they could afford to place big chunks of their income into investments and such. My thoughts on this has always been yea they can afford to pay allot in taxes but for example if you made a million $ this year would YOU or I want to wind up giving 48% back and only netting about 500k a year? I know 500k sounds like allot but if you or at least me busted my butt made a successful business or a good investment to make that money I wouldn't want to have to give almost half of it away. I certainly don't think we should dissuade people from investing their money. And nobody wants to give away their hard-earned money. I don't mind paying my fair share when I know it's going to be put to good use. I'm not talking about doing things to make people not want to invest their money. I'm just saying I don't see the need for the goverment to give people the reason to invest. I invest because I like to make money and because I want a retirement not because I can get out of paying 8% of my tax burden. I seriosly doubt wealthy people would stop investing and making money simply because they can not get a tax break or shelter their money. On the other hand I think taxing the wealthy at rate like 40+% is absurd also. You always hear people say things like " they can afford it" or "They should pay their fair share". I'm willing to bet you though that the first time they made 2 million in a year and wound up paying a 1 million in taxes (because they didn't know how to ease their tax burden) they would be singing a differnt tune about the rich needing to pay their share.
|
|
|
Post by poindexter on Oct 11, 2011 21:36:58 GMT -5
Uhmm...just for reference in potential future thread topics here RW, which of the following issues are your favorites?? - the moon landings - the Kennedy assassination - UFO's - Obama's birth certificate - the Philadelphia Experiment - chemtrails - fluoride in public water (saps our Essence ya know) - Andy Kaufman's death
|
|
|
Post by Rainier Wolfcastle on Oct 12, 2011 0:49:11 GMT -5
You lost me.
|
|
|
Post by getysbg on Oct 12, 2011 4:31:28 GMT -5
This is about spot on. Just recently Warren Buffet claimed his secretary was paying more taxes than him in a big spoof to Obama. The thing is if he wasn't hiding,sheltering and investing away his money in every possible way he could to avoid paying his taxes he would be paying more than his secretary. While his stunt was very eye opening and grabbing my thoughts were if he really cared than why wouldn't he pay what he thought his fair share was. The other thing allot of people who get upset about the wealthy being able to shelter allot of their money don't think about is that they could do it as well.............if they could afford to place big chunks of their income into investments and such. My thoughts on this has always been yea they can afford to pay allot in taxes but for example if you made a million $ this year would YOU or I want to wind up giving 48% back and only netting about 500k a year? I know 500k sounds like allot but if you or at least me busted my butt made a successful business or a good investment to make that money I wouldn't want to have to give almost half of it away. I certainly don't think we should dissuade people from investing their money. And nobody wants to give away their hard-earned money. I don't mind paying my fair share when I know it's going to be put to good use. But what is a "fair share" and how do you put it to good use when it's required to spend so much on making (but in the end failing to make) expenditures transparent.
|
|
|
Post by orrtannaoracle on Oct 12, 2011 7:19:01 GMT -5
Uhmm...just for reference in potential future thread topics here RW, which of the following issues are your favorites?? - the moon landings - the Kennedy assassination - UFO's - Obama's birth certificate - the Philadelphia Experiment - chemtrails - fluoride in public water (saps our Essence ya know) - Andy Kaufman's death LOL. Frankly, I am most interested in whether or not the moon landings were actually made by UFOs stolen from Area 51 by fluoride-addicted descendants of Andy Kaufman. Barry's birth certificate doesn't interest me very much - I know that his mother forged it some 50 years ago because she knew he would be running for president. This tin foil hat gets rather itchy after wearing it overnight. Excuse me while I clean it for today's adventures in CyberLand.
|
|
HoneyBadger
Poster Child
HoneyBadger don't give a shit.
Posts: 373
|
Post by HoneyBadger on Oct 12, 2011 7:52:25 GMT -5
Maybe I should put my hat on when I read BV. It's not tin. It's made from aluminum foil, has antennae and it reads "La Luna."
|
|
|
Post by Rainier Wolfcastle on Oct 12, 2011 8:01:33 GMT -5
Oh, so that's it then? The conspiracy theorist card? You disappoint me Poindexter. How is your dismissal of me any different than what you just chided americaneagle for doing in the occupy Wall St. thread? You made the statement that his labelling of people who don't agree with him as commies, Nazis, and socialists adds nothing to the conversation (I agree by the way) yet here you are trying to label and dismiss me in a similar fashion. A bit hypocritical don't you think? Even more disappointing than your hypocrisy though is that your comments show that we may have come to the end of your intellectual capabilities, and it didn't even take that long. Is that really all you have left in your arsenal? Condescending dismissal by way of an ad hominem attack. Your attempt to link me in a negative way to the subjects you listed may be a logical fallacy, but it's a fallacy none the less. I'm disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by Rainier Wolfcastle on Oct 12, 2011 8:08:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by orrtannaoracle on Oct 12, 2011 9:25:55 GMT -5
A sense of humor is apparently lacking among certain members of Boro Vent. Or their skin is unusually thin. Any regular visitor should know the water by now. As for AE, I expect nothing else. His views showed through in his work @ The Times. In an unfettered environment such as BV he can more fully display his sympathies.
|
|