The Hermanator telling it like it is!

[sirs]

CU4, the sign totally misrepresents the demonstrators' demands, which have nothing to do with the teabaggers and everything to do with the rich.  Also, they aren't just demanding that the rich pay more

Despite the FACT that they ALREADY PAY MORE

[Kramer]

CU4, the sign totally misrepresents the demonstrators' demands, which have nothing to do with the teabaggers and everything to do with the rich.  Also, they aren't just demanding that the rich pay more

Despite the FACT that they ALREADY PAY MORE

How much is enough? Are you rich if you make between $200,000 - $250,000 per year?

[Michael Tee]

<<Despite the FACT that they ALREADY PAY MORE>>

Pay more than they're already paying is what I meant.  Obviously, they don't even pay their fair share, as Warren Buffet admits.   His fucking housekeeper paid more taxes than he did.  But whatever they pay, fair share or not, it is obviously not enough.  The real issue is not how much they already paid, it's how much CAN they pay?

Well, at least the demonstrators get it, even if you don't.  Professor Sachs gets it, but you probably didn't even bother to look at the link I posted.

Bottom line is, the demonstrators want the rich to pay more, and you don't.  Well, don't worry, since all the candidates in the race have been bought and paid for by the rich, you'll be "vindicated" in the coming elections and they (the demonstrators) won't.

[sirs]

LOL....only to the hardcore left is acknowledging that they do indeed pay more, but its still not their "fair share".  Pretty scary world to consider where the government gets to dictate how much you're allowed to earn, if its not deemed "fair"

Cain's looking better and better everyday, if this is the stance the left wants Obama to really hang his hat on

[Michael Tee]

<<How much is enough? Are you rich if you make between $200,000 - $250,000 per year?>>

Personally I think 250K is a good cut-off line, kinda generous IMHO, but best to err on the side of generosity in these matters - - for an average family of four with an income of over 250K, it's hard for me to see any real pain there if the taxes go up another 10% per annum.

Of course, philosophically, we could debate this thing forever - - why 250K and not 240K, what if they got fourteen kids all with special needs, etc.?  In the real world, you just gotta draw a line somewhere and hope that other programs at the federal, state or local level will catch the folks who fall outside the usual parameters.  To me, $250K seems a good place to draw that line.

[Kramer]

<<Despite the FACT that they ALREADY PAY MORE>>

Pay more than they're already paying is what I meant.  Obviously, they don't even pay their fair share, as Warren Buffet admits.   His fucking housekeeper paid more taxes than he did.  But whatever they pay, fair share or not, it is obviously not enough.  The real issue is not how much they already paid, it's how much CAN they pay?

Well, at least the demonstrators get it, even if you don't.  Professor Sachs gets it, but you probably didn't even bother to look at the link I posted.

Bottom line is, the demonstrators want the rich to pay more, and you don't.  Well, don't worry, since all the candidates in the race have been bought and paid for by the rich, you'll be "vindicated" in the coming elections and they (the demonstrators) won't.

Speaking of paying a fair share of taxes, there are plenty of people that pay no income taxes what-so-ever. Since the 'rich' already pay a sizable amount of the taxes paid (and they are far fewer in numbers than the not so rich)why not have people like the ones protesting pay more tax or even some tax, since by them being there protesting they aren't rich? The Anarchists got there somehow, they appear to have decent cloths, they are eating well so they must have some sort of income. I suggest they pay more than they are paying in taxes. And since there are large masses of them that outnumber 'rich' people if everyone of them paid an additional 25% tax all of their problems would be over and they could have free healthcare and other government benefits. That way, as the demand, the government will take care of them, from cradle to grave, so they don't have to worry about it anymore.

[Michael Tee]

<<LOL....only to the hardcore left is acknowledging that they do indeed pay more, but its still not their "fair share".  Pretty scary world to consider where the government gets to dictate how much you're allowed to earn, if its not deemed "fair">>

I wasn't fixated on "fair," which I only mentioned in passing.  As I said (or tried to) the real issue is how much they CAN pay.  There's nothing scary about the government dictating how much of my earnings I get to keep, that's par for the course in just about any government on earth that levies taxes of any kind.  "Scary" is a government that can have its citizens blown to bits without due process of law, merely on the basis of some hidden document signed by some anonymous bureaucrat,  in blatant defiance of that country's own constitution.

<<Cain's looking better and better everyday, if this is the stance the left wants Obama to really hang his hat on>>

"The left" as far as I'm concerned wants Obama to be sitting in the same jail as GW Bush, waiting to be put on trial for their lives on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.  In the meantime, and back in the real world, I don't give a shit what happens to Obama, win or lose.  If he has to lose to Herman Cain, so be it.  Whatever else Cain may be at this point in time, he's not a war criminal and he's not a common murderer.  Unfortunately, can't say as much for Obama or for his predecessor in office.

[Kramer]

<<How much is enough? Are you rich if you make between $200,000 - $250,000 per year?>>

Personally I think 250K is a good cut-off line, kinda generous IMHO, but best to err on the side of generosity in these matters - - for an average family of four with an income of over 250K, it's hard for me to see any real pain there if the taxes go up another 10% per annum.

Of course, philosophically, we could debate this thing forever - - why 250K and not 240K, what if they got fourteen kids all with special needs, etc.?  In the real world, you just gotta draw a line somewhere and hope that other programs at the federal, state or local level will catch the folks who fall outside the usual parameters.  To me, $250K seems a good place to draw that line.

Since you like running numbers why not figure out a 9-9-9 plan? The rich still pay more.

[Michael Tee]

<<Speaking of paying a fair share of taxes, there are plenty of people that pay no income taxes what-so-ever. Since the 'rich' already pay a sizable amount of the taxes paid (and they are far fewer in numbers than the not so rich)why not have people like the ones protesting pay more tax or even some tax, since by them being there protesting they aren't rich? The Anarchists got there somehow, they appear to have decent cloths, they are eating well so they must have some sort of income. I suggest they pay more than they are paying in taxes. And since there are large masses of them that outnumber 'rich' people if everyone of them paid an additional 25% tax all of their problems would be over and they could have free healthcare and other government benefits. That way, as the demand, the government will take care of them, from cradle to grave, so they don't have to worry about it anymore.>>

Looks and sounds to me like most of those demonstrators are unemployed.  When you figure out how to levy an "income tax" on people who have no income, please get back to me.  From where I stand, 25% of zero is still zero.

[Kramer]

Looks and sounds to me like most of those demonstrators are unemployed.  When you figure out how to levy an "income tax" on people who have no income, please get back to me.  From where I stand, 25% of zero is still zero.


The 9-9-9 plan or a Flat Tax would work well for the unemployed because they get out of paying payroll taxes. This should be even more of a reason for the losers to support it.

Is the protesters goals more revenues to the government (since a Flat Tax or the 9-9-9 Plan would bring in more cash) or class warfare and destroying Capitalism their real goals? I tend to believe the later. I wonder if the protesters might be concerned about having to pay tax on their underground pot sales. Fuck them!

[Xavier_Onassis]

I wonder if the protesters might be concerned about having to pay tax on their underground pot sales. Fuck them!

===============
No doubt they would tell you that the feeling is mutual.

[Kramer]

I wonder if the protesters might be concerned about having to pay tax on their underground pot sales. Fuck them!

===============
No doubt they would tell you that the feeling is mutual.

No doubt if it comes down to them or me they will be going down first! There are a whole lot of people like CU4 and myself out there and we religiously practice the 2nd Amendment. Do you ever wonder why it's #2 and not #18?

[BT]

BT, looks like Prof. Jeffrey Sachs is an optimist, just like you:

http://www.truth-out.org/jeffrey-sachs-occupy-wall-street/1318196532

Well, I don't agree, but I still hope you guys are right.

CU4, the sign totally misrepresents the demonstrators' demands, which have nothing to do with the teabaggers and everything to do with the rich.  Also, they aren't just demanding that the rich pay more, they're also demanding that the rich stop buying off the law-makers and give the government back to the people.

Mikey i'll reply to your post and Sachs remarks this evening, when more time is available.

BTW Illinois doesn't have a proposition 13 yet they are as bankrupt as Cali.

[sirs]

<<LOL....only to the hardcore left is acknowledging that they do indeed pay more, but its still not their "fair share".  Pretty scary world to consider where the government gets to dictate how much you're allowed to earn, if its not deemed "fair">>

I wasn't fixated on "fair," which I only mentioned in passing.  As I said (or tried to) the real issue is how much they CAN pay. 

What business is it of you at what anyone else can and can't pay?  What business is it of anyone's, so long as they're paying EQUALLY, as in they ALREADY DO PAY THEIR FAR SHARE, SINCE THEY ALREADY PAY MORE

There's nothing scary about the government dictating how much of my earnings I get to keep, that's par for the course in just about any government on earth that levies taxes of any kind.  

There's everything scary at the idea of the America that was founded, one based on freedom, is removed, and replaced with one that mimics the movie, V for Vendetta.  Sorry, not going to happen here

[Michael Tee]

<<BTW Illinois doesn't have a proposition 13 yet they are as bankrupt as Cali. >>

With or without a Prop 13, they have CHOSEN not to increase taxes or not to increase them sufficiently.  This whole thing about states being "bankrupt" is bullshit.  What it means usually is that given a choice between raising taxes on the rich or discontinuing benefits to the poor, the choice is almost invariably made in favour of the people who shower them with money, trips, hookers and parties, rather than benefitting  the poor.