DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on August 24, 2012, 01:57:04 AM
-
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/2abf2684.jpg)
-
That is just DUMB!
The president, any president, does not do budgetary calculations. These are done by accountants, and the government has hundreds of them.
Romney says he won't raise taxes, and proposes to give investors and corporations a big tax break and expand the military. That is pretty much impossible as well. So his budget is a lie or also the result of bad math as well.
Ryan the weasel has little chance of getting his hateful crap through Congress, any Congress, and in any case, he claims it is "revenue neutral".
-
per your completely uncredible say so
-
I hardly think that the deficit is due to the President's ability to do arithmetic.
Any politician stating arithmetical truths is unlikely to win favor with some, perhaps more, voters.
-
I hardly think that the deficit is due to the President's ability to do arithmetic.
Any politician stating arithmetical truths is unlikely to win favor with some, perhaps more, voters.
You are right.
This is not just a fact , it is a problem.
Unless the economy actually expands more than the national debt does , there will not be enough tax revenue to cover the debt no matter how artfully the figures get juggled.
Every year we need a few more Billionaires and a bale more millionaries, nothing elese would produce better revenue than that.
It is hard to do the math to know where the break even points are, but it is easy to see that plenty is better than barely enough.
I wish that the president were astute enough to realise things like this, there would be no such thing as too soon to start doing it right.
But as you point out, he is astute enough to tell us what is nice to hear.
-
I hardly think that the deficit is due to the President's ability to do arithmetic.
Leave it to Xo, to again refute a point never made.....the notion that the deficit is due to "the President's ability to do arithmetic". It's due to his policies, put in place, when he had carte blanche control of all of Government, including a Fillibuster proof senate majority, in his 1st 2 years. Policies that have specifically strangled any attempts for either the private sector to get any employment momentum, and debt that is exponentally higher than when he claimed how unpatriotic it was for Bush to have had
Any politician stating arithmetical truths is unlikely to win favor with some, perhaps more, voters.
We'll see come Nov, won't we, as more and more "truths" come out, regarding the actual state of the economy, & the country's deathspiral of debt. Hard core numbners, that regardless of how minimal the Main Scream Media, tries to make of it, people's decreased takehome pay, and those still unemployed at over 8% for the gazillionth month in a row now, will take note......and VOTE
But take heart Xo.....I read recently a report that if the election were held for those either non-voting, or unable to vote, Obama would win in a landslide
-
Leave it to Xo, to again refute a point never made.....the notion that the deficit is due to "the President's ability to do arithmetic".
========================================
READ THE TITLE OF THIS POST, you drooling moron!
The original point is that our President refused to release his college records because "he probably flunked math".
It is a stupid allegation, but that is what it says.
The chief problem in this country is that more and more of this nation's wealth is concentrated in a few hands at the top. and Romney & Ryan want to make it even more possible for this to continue.
If Romney, a man who has refused to invest in tobacco and, yes, firearms, manages to get off with a total tax liability of a paltry 13%, what can we assume for the even more obese cats who have no compunctions at all and no desire to become president?
How many jobs has Romney created?
Do we really need more Rupert effing Murdocks, who will do anything just to acquire his fifth billionth dollar? Do you seriously believe that an army of Paris Hiltons and Donald Trumps will lead us to the Pot O' Gold at the End of the Rainbow?
Warren Buffett and many others managed to make piles and bunches of money with tax rates much higher than the ones we currently have.
Every politician in this country knows that voters love benefits and hate taxes. FREE is everyone's favorite price. To suggest that this is somehow a revelation to anyone is simply dumb.
-
It is really worse than President Obama being poor with arithmatic.
I have never seen any evidence that he is good with arithmatic , but the situation is worse than this would imply.
President Obama is trying to say that people serious about reducing the debt will favor a 3% or less improvement in tax recipts that he posits we will acheive by soaqking the rich.
Incredible and insulting it is that he is confident that few Americans have sufficent understanding of arithmatic to know that he is not being serious .
Isn't that bad?
-
Leave it to Xo, to again refute a point never made.....the notion that the deficit is due to "the President's ability to do arithmetic".
========================================
READ THE TITLE OF THIS POST, you drooling moron!
Boy, just can't lay off the immature 3rd grade namecalling, can you. Yea, I did read the article, and although Professor Obvious here would like to make this out as a literal article on Obama's math skills, IN CONTEXT, its referencing how he and his administration simply can't grasp the reality of simple math. His policies and path he's trying to lead this country in, is simply unsustainable, EVEN IF YOU MERELY RAISED TAXES ON "THE RICH". I can't vouch for why Cu2 specifically titled the thread as he did, but I sure took it as a nifty slap at the FACT that Obama hasn't released his college records (while hypocritically demanding that Romney release more tax returns than he's legally required), but that the crux of the article again demonstrates how mathematically debunked Obama's class warfare tactic is
-
(http://arthurkingoftimeandspace.com/3003.png)http://arthurkingoftimeandspace.com/ (http://arthurkingoftimeandspace.com/)
-
Romney's budget proposal would be even worse than Obama's.
If Romney wants anyone to shut up about his paltry tax returns, he can put them out there for all to see.
If he does not do this, he will clearly lose a lot of votes. No one but rightwing morons think there is any reason for President Obama to release his transcripts. It is just stupid to claim that he does not understand mathematics.
-
What I mean to say is that President Obama is showing his contempt for the American Voter by presenting his plan as a solution , when only a moments thought reviels that there is no potential for even minor improvement in it.
How exactly is Canadate Romneys plan worse than that?
-
Romney's plan is to spend more money and raise no revenue, so it would involve even more borrowing than Obama's plan.
There is no sense in spending more on the military when there is less fighting and fewer troops abroad.
-
How can you know there will be less fighting abroad?
How could Romney possibly plan more spending than Obama?
-
Romney's budget proposal would be even worse than Obama's.
Ok, here's your problem....YOU CAN'T BACK THAT UP. I'd ask you to support that claim, but your record speaks volumes, in your subsequent deafening silence. YOUR SAY SO HAS NO CREDIBILITY. THAT'S WHAT THE CONSTANT LACK OF BACKING UP YOUR CLAIMS HAS RENDERED YOUR CLAIMS. Just because you "say so" doesn't make it so. Bottom line, he has no legal need to provide any more in the way of tax returns. He was vetted by the McCain campaign, and being that there have been no indictments handed down, you and Seantor Reid can take a flying leap off some building as it relates to both of yours "say so"
As it relates to Obama & Math, the FACTS speak for themselves. You can't raise taxes on "the rich" and even dent the debt that Obama has rendered upon this country and generations to follow. But it WOULD continue to squelch any possiblility of job creation, as you raise taxes on the job creators and employers. But you apparently flunked logic 101
-
You can't raise taxes on "the rich" and even dent the debt that Obama has rendered upon this country and generations to follow. But it WOULD continue to squelch any possiblility of job creation, as you raise taxes on the job creators and employers. But you apparently flunked logic 101
Be Sanguine
Just because President Obama says he will soak the rich does not mean that it will happen, or that he would even try.
He is probly smarter than that, but he seems sure that most of us are not that smart.
Wait untill the retired community finds out that most of the rates he would like to raise are on investment income.
-
Raising the top tax rate to 39% is not soaking anyone.
You can easily find comparisons between Romney's plan and Obama's online.
Taxes are at close to an all time low, and yet, there are not that many jobs being created.
Warren Buffett and many others made tons of money when taxes were a lot higher.
Sirs can go speak volumes to himself, he is ignorant and annoying.
-
You can't raise taxes on "the rich" and even dent the debt that Obama has rendered upon this country and generations to follow. But it WOULD continue to squelch any possiblility of job creation, as you raise taxes on the job creators and employers. But you apparently flunked logic 101
Be Sanguine
Just because President Obama says he will soak the rich does not mean that it will happen, or that he would even try.
He is probly smarter than that, but he seems sure that most of us are not that smart.
Wait untill the retired community finds out that most of the rates he would like to raise are on investment income.
To be honest Plane, I do think he thinks most of us are not that smart. It's kinda SOP for liberal elites to think that way. they just know better and we just need to shut up and let them run things as they deem fit
Raising the top tax rate to 39% is not soaking anyone.
It is when they're ALREADY paying a higher tax rate on their income. It is when raising it doesn't remotely touch the debt. But by all means, continue to demonstrate your uncredible say so, but great grasp at immature namecalling
Warren Buffett and many others made tons of money when taxes were a lot higher.
Very few of us, who'll be hit the hardest with the increased taxes, have the resources of a Warren Buffett
-
Raising the top tax rate to 39% is not soaking anyone.
You can easily find comparisons between Romney's plan and Obama's online.
Taxes are at close to an all time low, and yet, there are not that many jobs being created.
It took me a while to get what you ment , then I read this Washington Post article then I got it.
In a way it is true that the effective rate of taxation is falling, in the same way that a students grades would be falling if he were turning in some tests blank and some tests incomplete.
If Americans continue to be unemployed and underemployed in rising numbers the effective rate of taxation will continue to fall as more zeros ands sub pars are added to the advradge.
So having the worst unemployment numbers in thirty years (pretty persistantly) is produceing this statistcal effect.
This is putting a nice spin on unemployment isn't it?
By the way , this statements truth also depends on placeing your time horizon in the correct decade.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/15/AR2009041503371.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/15/AR2009041503371.html)
http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/personal-income-taxes/tax-brackets1.htm (http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/personal-income-taxes/tax-brackets1.htm)
Effective Tax Rate
To find your effective tax rate, or your overall tax rate, divide your total tax by your taxable income.
•1913: Tax brackets range from 1 percent on income of $0-$20,000 to 7 percent on income of $500,000 and higher.
•1916: Revenue Act increases rates. Tax brackets range from 2 percent to 15 percent.
•1917: War Revenue Act of 1917 increases rates. Tax brackets range from 2 percent on income of $0-$2,000 to 67percent on income of $2 million and higher.
•1920s: Tax rates are cut because the economy is doing well. The highest marginal rate decreases to 25 percent.
•1930s: Big increases because of the Great Depression. Lowest rate is 4 percent. Highest rate is 79 percent. Income of $90,000-$100,000 is taxed at 59 percent. In 1933, there are 55 tax brackets, mostly in 1 percent increments.
•World War II: Great tax increases to fund the war. The lowest rate in 1944 is 23 percent, for income of $2,000 or less. The highest rate is 94 percent for income of $200,000 or more.
•1981: Economic Recovery Tax Cut of 1981 lowers tax rates. Highest tax rate drops from 70 percent to 50 percent.
•1986: Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduces rates further and cuts the number of brackets. For the 1986 tax year there are 15 tax brackets. For 1987, there are five. [source: The Tax Foundation]
In the 1980s, economists argued that high tax rates dissuaded people from working hard. The tax changes in the 1980s, then, were meant to encourage economic growth. Tax rates have fluctuated since then, but the simplified tax bracket system has changed very little.
-
Very few of us, who'll be hit the hardest with the increased taxes, have the resources of a Warren Buffett
======================================
The only tax increase proposed is to raise the top bracket from 35% to 39% for incomes over $250K per couple.
No one will be hit hard by that, and the few that will be hit at all will hardly have any aspect of their lifestyle changed.
-
Very few of us, who'll be hit the hardest with the increased taxes, have the resources of a Warren Buffett
======================================
The only tax increase proposed is to raise the top bracket from 35% to 39% for incomes over $250K per couple.
That's not the Warran Buffett folk. Compared to the population of this country, the Buffetts make up an extremely small fraction of those making over $250k. And for those who run a business, have a payroll and other financial obligations to meet, especially if they're barely making 250K, they DO get hit the hardest, while your Mr Buffett throws another $100 in the fire. Just because Buffett can handle the increased taxes without blinking an eye, hardly refers to the vast majority that it would negatively impact
Not to mention mathematics 101 that demonstrates how this tax increase doesn't even scrape the surface of the debt now being imposed upon this country, its children, and their children's children
-
Very few of us, who'll be hit the hardest with the increased taxes, have the resources of a Warren Buffett
======================================
The only tax increase proposed is to raise the top bracket from 35% to 39% for incomes over $250K per couple.
No one will be hit hard by that, and the few that will be hit at all will hardly have any aspect of their lifestyle changed.
I guess those not hired as a result of a tax increase will not know why.
-
They may not even exist. Raising taxes by 4% is NOT a hardship. If you take money out of profits and hire people that same year with the profits, the cost of paying them is deductible as a business expense and no one pays taxes on it.
-
They may not even exist. Raising taxes by 4% is NOT a hardship. If you take money out of profits and hire people that same year with the profits, the cost of paying them is deductible as a business expense and no one pays taxes on it.
Unemployment is 8%,so +4%=12%
I would guess this to be a hardship.
5
-
It is absurd to assume that all money not taxed goes to hiring the unemployed.
-
It is absurd to assume that all money not taxed goes to hiring the unemployed.
I shall take your overstatement and return it in reverse.
It is absurd to think that none of the money ripped away from the economy by taxes is being removed from good purposes.
-
Probably the worst thing that could be done with money is to spent it on war, or anything that causes destruction. Taxes can be used for highly beneficial things: highways, bridges, hydroelectric plants, medical research. Money in the private sector can be spent on destructive activities: casinos, bogus drugs that not only do not do what they are supposed to, but are harmful.
When money is spent, regardless of by whom, it can have a multiplier effect which is unrelated to whether the government or some private individual spends it.
-
It is absurd to assume that all money not taxed goes to hiring the unemployed.
I shall take your overstatement and return it in reverse.
It is absurd to think that none of the money ripped away from the economy by taxes is being removed from good purposes.
OUCH....touche', Plane
-
It is equally absurd to think that money spent by the government is always spend by a more worthy purpose than money spent by some guy with a private business. Money spent on a highway is a lot more productive than money spend on some bozo;s soda vending machines.
There is no touché
-
It is equally absurd to think that money spent by the government is always spend by a more worthy purpose than money spent by some guy with a private business. ..............................................
Perhaps not always, but generally and mostly yes , money spent by people who need to earn it is spent more wisely than money spent by someone who can demand or print it.
-
It is equally absurd to think that money spent by the government is always spend by a more worthy purpose than money spent by some guy with a private business.
With the grand canyon of a difference being that the person spending on private business is using HIS MONEY, and is likely to be a FAR BETTER STEWARD OF IT, than a Government who has no such connection, since they're using other people's money
There is no touché
Oh my god, it was a HUGE touche' 8) As big as this whopper you just pulled above
-
What is ment when one says touché?
I am a little hazy on that.
I think it is a fensing term, would it translate to "score" or does it just mean "tap" or "touch"?
-
hehe.......it is meant as a compliment......as in "well done", or in this case, "well said"
-
It means that the fencing sword has touched the heart painted on the fencing suit. It means "touched" in French.
sirs deserves no "touché".
And of course, President Obama's math skills or his grades in math have nothing to do with reality here.
-
a) Plane was the one receiving the touche', not me
b) this never has been literally about Obama's math grades
oy
-
So why the title about Obama's probable math grades?
-
Asked and answered already......I can't vouch for why Cu2 specifically titled the thread as he did, but I sure took it as a nifty slap at the FACT that Obama hasn't released his college records (while hypocritically demanding that Romney release more tax returns than he's legally required), but that the crux of the article again demonstrates how mathematically debunked Obama's class warfare tactic is
-
Mitt releases his tax forms or he loses. People do not trust him. Why should they? The only reason any American invests in the Cayman Islands is to evade taxes.
-
Yea, right. Mitt releases MORE of his tax returns, and folks like you will just keep trolling for more dirt. Let's see 20years!!....OH?, he's not releasing them, by God he must have something to hide.
Its only the folks that'll never trust him to begin with who don't trust him....and never will. He's released what he's legally required to release. Try trolling Obama's college record release, then will see just how serious folks like yourself are at transparency & honesty
But cudos on the deflection effort
-
Where and how Romney avoids paying taxes is of interest to the citizens. Our President's college transcripts are of no real interest to anyone.
You are too dense to understand that, or are successful in your efforts to appear so.
-
Where and how there's any evidence of Romney avoiding paying taxes is of far more interest, to those same citizens. Yours and Reid's 2nd hand say so, just doesn't cut the credibility requirements, I'm afraid to say
But cudos to what you are very good at....name calling
-
I'm afraid to say
====================
You are afraid to recognize the truth.
-
Xo, you wouldn't know the truth, as it relates to politics & conservatives, if it were the ocean, and you fell overboard into it. There is "no truth" to these wreckless claims that Romney is somehow perpetuating some tax evading felony. Just the say so of a Democrat hack senator, by "someone" who told him.
Of course, I can see why you have an affinity for Reid's accusation..........same tactic as yours. Claim something outrageous but can't back it up with any facts......just your say so. Sorry, your credibility meter is barely hoverying over scum level. But hey, if it makes you feel better, Reid's is probably lower than scum
-
On the other hand , if President Obama actually did well in math , all he needs to do to prove it is release his grades.
Since he is not useing his colledge grades for bragging I can consider it resolved that they are not very high grades.
The only real evidence we have that he is poor with math is his rediculous assertion that a 3% rase of taxes on 5% of the population is serious debt reduction. I think this is strong evidence , but not proof, because there is an alrternate explanation. President Obama might be quite good with math , but make a stupid math statement in confidence that Americans are generally bad at math.
It would be quite surprising to find Mitt Romneys tax returns reveiling a felony , if that were so the IRS would have taken care of him the year after the felony was done. If President Obamas re-election team has evidence of even the slightest impropriety in Govenor Mitt Romney's tax paying we will be informed of every detail late in October. I would not be shocked at Mitt Romney having a lot of money, nor would I be even slightly surprised if he employed sophisticated strategys to gain and keep the money. I do suppose that he expects more jelosy than admiration for his money amounting to so much, so he thinks it better left unmentioned. This makes me think that Romney and Obama both have a low esteem for the wisdom of the common man.
-
On the other hand , if President Obama actually did well in math , all he needs to do to prove it is release his grades.
...
The only real evidence we have that he is poor with math is his rediculous assertion that a 3% rase of taxes on 5% of the population is serious debt reduction. I think this is strong evidence , but not proof, because there is an alrternate explanation. President Obama might be quite good with math , but make a stupid math statement in confidence that Americans are generally bad at math.
Ouch....well deduced, Plane
-
The tax increase is teensy when it comes to paying off the government's bills, but huge when it is used to ostensibly create jobs.
That does not make sense.
-
The tax increase is teensy when it comes to paying off the government's bills, but huge when it is used to ostensibly create jobs.
That does not make sense.
So which is it?
Really what do you expect the benefit to amount to?
I never said it makes sense , that would be a lot to expect of a Democrat wouldn't it?
The tax revenue from an increase in rate , what do you expect it to be?
The resulting loss in employment , how large is tolerable ?
There is no way to know without trying that you wouldn't get negative numbers on both counts.
But there is no potential at all for a tax increase to improve employment numbers, that, if nothing elese, is certain.
President Obama is genuinely discounting his suporters having any motive or ability to compute.
I am not insulted by this , I am not a supporter of his.
-
There have been very prosperous periods of our history in which tax rates were a lot higher than anything that our President has suggested. A 4% tax hike on the very wealthy would have little or no impact on jobs, just as the current low rates have had little impact.
-
There have been very prosperous periods of our history in which tax rates were a lot higher than anything that our President has suggested. A 4% tax hike on the very wealthy would have little or no impact on jobs, just as the current low rates have had little impact.
"A 4% tax hike on the very wealthy would have little or no impact on jobs"
This seems very much like nonsense, if you take money out of the budgets that hire , how can it have anything less than a negative effect on hireing?
Looks like a direct relationship.
-
Raising tax rates (ie letting the Bush cuts expire) on the rich, might not lower the opportunities for employment. Simply because the majority of taxation on the rich takes the form on taxes on capital gains, which is why the Romneys and the Buffetts pay at a lessor rate than their secretaries. It would have an effect on a lot middle class folks who derive their income from S Corporations which is a pass thru from their small businesses. And those folks are the ones who do the majority of hiring. So the tax the rich meme is really a redirection wrapped in class warfare because the targets of the increase really are not affected.
Those who see a need to raise taxes should allow the Bush tax cuts expire for all tiers for the equality!
-
Raising tax rates (ie letting the Bush cuts expire) on the rich, might not lower the opportunities for employment. Simply because the majority of taxation on the rich takes the form on taxes on capital gains, which is why the Romneys and the Buffetts pay at a lessor rate than their secretaries. It would have an effect on a lot middle class folks who derive their income from S Corporations which is a pass thru from their small businesses. And those folks are the ones who do the majority of hiring. So the tax the rich meme is really a redirection wrapped in class warfare because the targets of the increase really are not affected.
Those who see a need to raise taxes should allow the Bush tax cuts expire for all tiers for the equality!
Isn't that the opposite of helping?
No change in the income tax affects the capitol gains tax, you are severly in the apple orange marmalade there.
Every dime removed from the economy is a dime no longer availible for the economy to use , the government will put part of that back , but less than just leaving it in the economy would have done .
Capitol gains taxes being high discorages investment , and makes retirement more difficult, if we would cut the capitol gains taxes in half why wouldn't that doubble the amount of small business start ups ? Wouldn't it also encourage selling houses at lower margins of profit?
Income taxes being high discourages work, what if we reduced all income taxes 2%, wouldn't that mean that all of the people on the margin of tax bracket creep would get a reprieve? Wouldn't many thousands find 2% more disposible income handy for upgrading their appliences and cars?
I really do not understand , what is magic about the government ? When they confiscate the money and then return it , at the best they delay its deployment, at the worst they really waste a lot of it.
I read a National Geographic article once that told of a cargo cult, giving a can full of coins to the prophet, the author watched as the cult members poured the coins from one bucket into another over and over as they blessed and sang over it.
At the end they counted up , the number of coins were the same but their ownership had changed from the author to the cult.
I thought it was a funny story at the time , but now I work for the government.
-
We would be better off letting all the Bush tax cuts disappear.
-
Plane i think people conflate income tax with capital gains taxes. They are not the same. Thus Bufffett and Romney can get away with a 13% rate and their secretaries pay 25%. You are right - the issues are apples and oranges.
As far as raising income taxes, the only way i would be in favor of retiring the Bush Tax Cuts is if it affected all tiers. I just don't believe one group of people deserve better treatment than another group based on arbitrary feelings of a third party. If you really want to be fair, switch to a flat tax, preferably on consumption.
-
Plane i think people conflate income tax with capital gains taxes. They are not the same. Thus Bufffett and Romney can get away with a 13% rate and their secretaries pay 25%. You are right - the issues are apples and oranges.
........................................................................................
Is this accidental?
Are cynical people with no respect for the common wisdom conflating things they know are diffrent , confident that most of us are either too busy or too silly to catch them at it?
-
Is this accidental?
of course not.
-
The facts are simple. The Bush tax cut hasn't created jobs. Any notion that keeping it will suddenly do so is balderdash. It's like the myth floating around that the working poor don't pay income tax. Of course they do, in the form of payroll withholding taxes.
The under-educated white southerners used to be anti-rich Democrats. Now they're Republicans, supporting the wealthy, and still getting the shaft from them. Goldwater, Nixon, and Reagan pulled the wool right over your eyes.
BSB
-
The justifacation for payroll withholding was Social Security.
Untill Clinton era Social Security was a profit center, it made a surplus every year.
Matter of fact it was during the Clinton Presidency that the baby boom generation made its peak earnings.
During the Bush Presidency the Baby boom began to retire and the recipts from its tax began to decline.
If the moneys collected for Social Security had been devoted to Social Security it might have been self supporting for generations more, but the mixing of the Social Security taxes into the general fund converted a good idea into a Ponzi scheme.
If you were to subtract the taxes collected for Social Security from the Clinton "surplus" you would have the more ordinary deficet.
This is why President Obama cannot merely turn back the clock and run an imitation of the Clinton economy, the Baby Boom is almost all retired and he cannot put them back to work at their peak earnings.
The Clinton years , to me , represent missed oppurtunity.
-
So now we have income, capital gains and payroll taxes conflated.No wonder the blue staters are confused when it comes to taxation.
-
So now we have income, capital gains and payroll taxes conflated.No wonder the blue staters are confused when it comes to taxation.
Yes they absolutely are.
Would it serve better to make the revenue streams less fungable?
-
It certainly would make funds harder to raid.
Local government does have restrictions for co-mingling Enterprise Funds (Utilities, etc) with General Funds.
-
"Tax Withholding
www.irs.gov/Individuals/Employees/Tax-Withholding (http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/Employees/Tax-Withholding) - Cached
Aug 2, 2012 ... Income tax is withheld from the pay of most employees."
That's "Income tax is withheld..."
BSB
-
The under-educated white southerners used to be anti-rich Democrats. Now they're Republicans, supporting the wealthy, and still getting the shaft from them. Goldwater, Nixon, and Reagan pulled the wool right over your eyes.
==========================================
Like the lyrics to Alabama's "Song of the South"
"Poppa was a veteran, a Southern Democrat.
Gotta be a rich man to vote like that."
After the Civil Rights Act, Poppa was a Republican, and still wasn't rich.
Nor would be ever be.
-
Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax is a United States Federal payroll (or employment) tax[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax)
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Share_of_Federal_Revenue_from_Different_Tax_Sources_%28Individual%2C_Payroll%2C_and_Corporate%29_1950_-_2010.gif/400px-Share_of_Federal_Revenue_from_Different_Tax_Sources_%28Individual%2C_Payroll%2C_and_Corporate%29_1950_-_2010.gif)
-
It certainly would make funds harder to raid.
Local government does have restrictions for co-mingling Enterprise Funds (Utilities, etc) with General Funds.
I would favor restricting spending just this way.
Taxes spent on things other than the purposes they were gathered for should require special sanction, like a three quarters vote or a referendum.
-
General Funds must balance annually. You can carry a surplus for contingencies, but you can not carry a deficit. Most small cities in GA carry a six month reserve.
-
General Funds must balance annually. You can carry a surplus for contingencies, but you can not carry a deficit. Most small cities in GA carry a six month reserve.
That doesn't sound bad, but the Federal Policy seems to prefer lots of debt every year since President Van Buren.
-
That's the IRS calling it an income tax. Further, when you pay, or file for a return, what has been withheld goes toward what you owe, or will get back.
Another thing. If you're paying tax, by way of a capital gain tax, on what you make for income, that's your income tax. That's out of wack and needs to be revised. You can't have people like my brother, who made over a million a year, paying his income tax at the low capital gains rate. It's bullshit.
BSB
-
Income tax is taxation of your wages and income progressively tiered based on income. If you don't earn over a certain amount you have no federal income tax obligation.
Payroll tax is deducted from your income, often your paycheck with a matching contribution from your employer and is taxed from the first penny earned up until you reach a certain amount somewhere in the 100k. It is a flat tax at the rate of 15
Capital gains tax is taxed at 15% and is based on the profit derived from selling assets at a higher price than you bought them for, this often applies to stock transactions.
Three different types of taxation often conflated in the minds of voters purposely by politicians driven to driving wedges between the various groups.
So when the claim is made that low income earners pay income tax and then payroll tax is given as proof that is false on the face of it.
And when claims are made that some wealthy guys pay income tax at a lower rate than their clerical staff that is not true either.
-
Well summized!!
-
And when claims are made that some wealthy guys pay income tax at a lower rate than their clerical staff that is not true either.
The claims are true.
Buffett's secretary pays at a higher rate than Buffett. 25% vs 15%
-
You can call 'em a banana if you want but they are taxes on incoming money. Most of us know that and don't need to pretend otherwise. Some, like you BT, need to play games with it.
My brother was hired to run a hedge fund for an extremely wealthy individual. He, my brother, was able to pay his income tax as capital gains. He didn't need to pretend it wasn't income. He knew better, and readily admitted he was getting away with murder.
BSB
-
And when claims are made that some wealthy guys pay income tax at a lower rate than their clerical staff that is not true either.
The claims are true.
Buffett's secretary pays at a higher rate than Buffett. 25% vs 15%
I guess we will have to see both parties tax returns to get to the bottom of this.
-
Don't you believe Buffett? He's not kidding. He pays at 15%. He's playing the same game my brother played, and Romney plays. Hell, Romney admitted to paying as low as 13%.
Now, would I play the same game? Of course I would. However, it's not right, and needs to be changed. The wealthy need to pay more taxes. Admitting that isn't being an anti-capitalist. It isn't being anti-American. It's just being realistic. The deck is going to get stacked, that's the way people are. And when it does, you have to unstack it and start over again. No big deal.
BSB
-
I'd like to see the forms both the secretary and Buffett filed. That might help clear up the matter.
I am sure both parties filed truthfully and within the letter of the law. Just as Romney did.
-
BT check this out for the truth....yeah it's a few years old....but still the same basic numbers.
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes (http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes)
-
My focus is on clearing up any misunderstanding in members minds concerning the differences between income, payroll and capital gains taxes. There seems to be some confusion.
It is common knowledge that Steve Jobs salary as CEO of Apple was $1.
What tier would that place him in?
-
If you earn an income selling goods or working for a wage , and you earn more than a certain threshhold you will owe income tax on those earnings.
If you spend all of the remainder you will never owe any capitol gains tax.
But if you buy land , or stock in a company or otherwise invest in securitys you might, when you sell again, owe a tax on its increase in value.
So you pay a tax on your money , and if you invest well you will be taxed again on the same again.
Increasing the capitol gains tax will reduce investment , make it harder to buy and to sell farms and homes and decrease the ability of 401k type retirement accounts to carry their retireees thru retirement.
Eliminating the capitol gains tax will still allow the government to tax all earnings once , and if investment and sale of major propertys and securitys is easyer to make profit on , it would promothe business and employment.
You can call a tax on taxed money "fair" if you really have to think in this peculiar way, but it is the sort of fairness that promotes starvation being shared rather than prosperity being unequally distributed.
Yes Warren Buffet is kidding , I can't beleive he doesn't understand this stuff.
-
My focus is on clearing up any misunderstanding in members minds concerning the differences between income, payroll and capital gains taxes. There seems to be some confusion.
It is common knowledge that Steve Jobs salary as CEO of Apple was $1.
What tier would that place him in?
Touche'
-
Jobs owned stock in the company. So his tax bracket would be 15% of the capital appreciation of his stock, if he sold it. If not, he would pay no tax until he realized his capital gains.
The $1 is immaterial. It is just a gesture.
There is no touché. Stop being annoying.
-
Jobs owned stock in the company. So his tax bracket would be 15% of the capital appreciation of his stock, if he sold it. If not, he would pay no tax until he realized his capital gains.
The $1 is immaterial. It is just a gesture.
There is no touché. Stop being annoying.
So when he filled out his 1040ez form to pay income taxes, would he put in $1 for gross earnings?
Does he file another form for Capital Gains?
-
If his total income was $1, he is not required to pay taxes. Again, duh.
Like anyone else, he would add up his W-2 forms and add income from the profit of the sale of any securities. He was clearly not living on air, and no doubt got income from some source other than his job at Apple.
\
Just get a copy of a Form 1040 and follow the directions. input what you think he made and you will get the result of what he would pay if your guessing was accurate.
-
If your income were all capitol gains , you could dedcide how much to harvest and therefore how much to pay tax.
How you would make your investments dependable enough to harvest a living from is something I havn't figured out.
-
How you would make your investments dependable enough to harvest a living from is something I havn't figured out.
=============================================================
Then you should consult with a financial adviser. I suggest calling TIAA-CREF. They can figure this out for you quite well. If you want to be more hands-on, I suggest you join AAII. Both are readily available, very well-qualified and extremely affordable.
-
How you would make your investments dependable enough to harvest a living from is something I havn't figured out.
=============================================================
Then you should consult with a financial adviser. I suggest calling TIAA-CREF. They can figure this out for you quite well. If you want to be more hands-on, I suggest you join AAII. Both are readily available, very well-qualified and extremely affordable.
Thank you , but should I really risk buying a lot of securitys when the government is just about to raise the rate of capitol gains taxes?
-
Jobs owned stock in the company. So his tax bracket would be 15% of the capital appreciation of his stock, if he sold it. If not, he would pay no tax until he realized his capital gains.
The $1 is immaterial. It is just a gesture.
There is no touché. Stop being annoying.
Of course its a touche'. Bt has clearly ruined both yours and bsb's attempts at conflating taxes, trying to intermix them to pull a number that's more appealing to your rhetoric, regardless of where it came from
Whether its Jobs, or Romney, or Soros, they PAYED income taxes, until they reached a level that they believed they could live on their Capital gains taxes, which by the way, they were PAYING on them as well, when they were also PAYING income taxes. The % of folks who actually live off their Capital Gains is a mere fraction of the rest of this country. Just because those few could survive a hike in their capital gains taxes, not to mention the idea of hiking their income taxes as well, not only is grossly unfair, as they ALREADY ARE paying the vast majority of the Government to function, but as the whole point of this thread demonstrates, from the original post, it doesn't even begin to dent the debt that this President and the Dems have blanketed this country, its children, and its children's children with
-
Suppose there is someone , in his sixth or seventh decade of life.
This person has saved up and bought land , securitys.
His plan may be to retire, but his savings are marginal, he can only barely do it.
He needs to sell his house and a lot of his securitys.
This is the kind of guy that higher capitol gains taxes will hurt worst , these are the taxes that will reduce his fixed income.
-
Yep...not to mention that Obamination care is the biggest tax hike on the Middle class, this country has ever been soaked with
-
This is the kind of guy that higher capitol gains taxes will hurt worst , these are the taxes that will reduce his fixed income.
==========================================
Being as I am retired and have investments, I can tell you that you are full of crap.
If the guy is retired and has investments, they are in either a Roth IRA and he will pay ZERO taxes, or they are in a traditional IRA and he will have to pay at the standard rate, NOT the Capital gains rate. Increasing the rate on capital gains will affect him nary one whit.
If you are on Social Security, you can have around $30K per year income, including Social security and pay NOTHING to the IRS. and you won't pay into Social Security, either.
-
This is the kind of guy that higher capitol gains taxes will hurt worst , these are the taxes that will reduce his fixed income.
==========================================
Being as I am retired and have investments, I can tell you that you are full of crap.
If the guy is retired and has investments, they are in either a Roth IRA and he will pay ZERO taxes, or they are in a traditional IRA and he will have to pay at the standard rate, NOT the Capital gains rate. Increasing the rate on capital gains will affect him nary one whit.
If you are on Social Security, you can have around $30K per year income, including Social security and pay NOTHING to the IRS. and you won't pay into Social Security, either.
Sounds as if you are not paying your fair share.
-
I have already paid my fair share, thank you very much. I paid around 11%-15% every year, plus Social Security and Medicaid.
In 1999, I paid off my small house, and I have simply taken the standard deduction. I have never been audited.
I was pointing out that what you said about some theoretical geezer with limited investments was simply untrue. The tax code is kind to any retiree with a gross income of under $50K per year, which is plenty to live on if one owns their own house and pays low property taxes. My property taxes were $680 last year.
The capital gains rate does not have any effect on what most retired investors pay on money they take out of their IRAs.
When I take money out of my traditional IRA in excess of $30,000 Gross income, I will pay the standard rate on it. I have not had a need to take more than this amount out, however.
Changing the capital gains rate would probably not affect me at all.
-
Good job planning your retirement and living within the provision therof.
I don't mean to get personal----------------- sorry.
If you can within the rules pay a reasonably small tax , good for you .
Would this not be good for everybody?
If someone had earned a lot , saved a lot , exceeds the limits by being just that productive , why is his "fair share " higher than someone who simply spent the money sooner?
-
If someone had earned a lot , saved a lot , exceeds the limits by being just that productive , why is his "fair share " higher than someone who simply spent the money sooner?
========================================
People should NOT spend their money sooner,. That is the whole idea behind IRA and Roth IRA's: to encourage people to save for their retirement, so they will not need to be supported by the government or charity.
Self sufficiency, thrift and planning should be encouraged.
-
Spend it sooner , pay less taxes in a hotter economy.
Tax policy tends to discourage saving and investing.
Capitol gains and death taxes especially.
-
That is ridiculous.
The inheritance tax is the very BEST sort of tax. And no, it does not do in family farms.
Trickle down economics does not work. Supply side economics is bogus. All who have tried it have ended up with huge deficits.
It is stupid to say that Obama flunked math and that is the cause of our problems.
Just a dumb comment from a dumb poster.
Obama did not "hide" his transcripts, he simply has not made them public, because by doing so, he would be swiftboated by former classmates. In six years of university, he would have taken 60 classes, with perhaps 40 classmates on average in each. That is 2400 classmates. Among 2400 people, they would get a good dozen willing to lie, just as the swiftboaters did about Kerry.
A don't see where Romney or McCain released their transcripts.
We know that McCain was near the bottom of his class, but that probably has little to do with ability.
Robert E Lee had a perfect record at West Point, and Grant scored pretty low. We know how that turned out.
But really this was irrelevant for Lee & Grant and it is irrelevant for Obama, because there were too many other factors involved.
-
That is ridiculous.
The inheritance tax is the very BEST sort of tax. And no, it does not do in family farms.
Very specificly it does indeed, and so well that only a few are left. It also does well at closing down small businesses.
Trickle down economics does not work. Supply side economics is bogus. All who have tried it have ended up with huge deficits.
It is stupid to say that Obama flunked math and that is the cause of our problems.
Just a dumb comment from a dumb poster.
Obama did not "hide" his transcripts, he simply has not made them public, because by doing so, he would be swiftboated by former classmates. In six years of university, he would have taken 60 classes, with perhaps 40 classmates on average in each. That is 2400 classmates. Among 2400 people, they would get a good dozen willing to lie, just as the swiftboaters did about Kerry.
A don't see where Romney or McCain released their transcripts.
We know that McCain was near the bottom of his class, but that probably has little to do with ability.
Robert E Lee had a perfect record at West Point, and Grant scored pretty low. We know how that turned out.
But really this was irrelevant for Lee & Grant and it is irrelevant for Obama, because there were too many other factors involved.
Who ever said that trickle down economics works?
Please describe the poliicy that was so successfull for Clinton , if it was not trickle down?
-
Clinton did not reduce taxes on the wealthy, to start with.
Family farms are a thing of the past due to many things other than the inheritance tax. Most often, the heirs simply prefer to live somewhere else than on the far, and to do something less difficult than farming. Where I went to HS, there were at least twenty guys in my class of 122 who were members of the Future Farmers of America, who lived on small farms in NW Missouri. NONE of them is a farmer today. NONE lost a farm due to any inheritance tax, either. They simply decided that farming was too much work for too little money. The town has two high schools now, and ten times the population and there is no chapter of the FFA at any of the schools.
When it was proposed that farms be exempt from the tax, the GOP was still against the tax.
Most of what is called a "small business" is something that is by no means small. Usually it means a sole proprietorship, rather than a stock company.
Why should I give a damn if the McDonald's across the street from my house belongs to one tycoon who has five other McDonald's or some corporation that owns a hundred of the damned things? Why is one better than another?
-
The decline of the small family farmer is not prevented in any way by giving half of every farm to the government to squander each generation.
Middle sized farms can have corporate ownership , which ironicly is the main way that the family gets to keep it , but the government is actively strangling small farms .
Small business hires better than big business .
Small business does not concentrate wealth as much as large business.
Small farms are more apt to have farmers living on them , and these farmers are more apt to conserve the land.
A lot of acreage is owned by insurance companys , who do not love the soil as much as they love the subsidy.
Large scale agribusiness is more apt to hire lobbyists and do soak up most of the subsidy the government produces.
I could keep coming up with reasons to prefer lots of small farms and lots of small business to having much larger farms and a few huge businesses.
I can imagine the sweet deal that the government can work out with Wall Mart , the only store and Prudential , the owner of the coast to coast farm.
There are indeed other harms to family farming, but the death tax is the shot to the heart, wouldn't you bandage the sucking chest wound before you splinted the broken leg?
I suppose that the death tax is popular because it is imagined that the tax is taken from the large fortunes of millionaires and billionaires, I really don't think this is what is happening, by the time someone has a million dollars he is visiting accountants and atturneys on a regular basis. That accountants and attourneys can circumvent intended tax burdens is pretty well established.
To my mind every tax that is more than slightly complex produces an advantage to the wealthy, but because the congress is a millionaires club this is probly unavoidable.
-
I did not say that small farms were not a good thing. I said they were becoming rarer, and that this has very little to do with the inheritance tax.
I personally, would not wish to farm. I am glad that others do. But as I said, not a one of the Future Farmers of America in my graduating class in a rather fertile part of NW Missouri, lives by farming. There is ONE guy, who still lives on a farm. He has several cows and pigs and leases the land to a guy who breeds horses.
At one time I had 33 acres of pasture, that I inherited from my father, who bought it for an investment. He rented it out as horse pasture, which paid the taxes. I sold it, making a profit of 2.6% annually from the day he bought it. I put it in mutual funds, which have averaged around 8% for the past 22 years. The land was unsuited for crops. I sold to a retired airline pilot who paid me cash and said he was planning to build a home, but so far, there are just a few horses grazing there. I do not know whether they are his horses or he has sold it or just leasing to for horse pasture.
]
If bazillionaires have figured out a way to avoid the inheritance tax, then the government should rewrite the laws so they cannot do this.
-
If bazillionaires have figured out a way to avoid the inheritance tax, then the government should rewrite the laws so they cannot do this.
Do you think it possible?
For our congress to pass laws that are not favorable to wealthy people?
Or lawyers?
What is the ratio of congresspersons who are wealthy to congresspersons who are not?
What is the ratio of congresspersons who are atturneys to congresspersons who have other career training?
Q) What would you call the millionaires caucus in congress?
A) A quroum
Q) What would you call the lawyers caucus in congress?
A)Congress.
-
I have already paid my fair share, thank you very much.
Says who? Who put you in charge of proclaiming who has and who hasn't payed their fair share?? It's pretty egregious to try and claim folks already having payed income taxes at the highest rates, fully had their incomes deducted into payroll taxes, and on top of that, also pay capital gains taxes. And for you to claim how the estate tax is the "best tax of all" demonstrates how completely disconnected you are from the term fair. Even after paying all those taxes to the Governnet, you're going to hit a family yet again with even more taxes, because someone died. Frellin incredible
It is stupid to say that Obama flunked math and that is the cause of our problems.
Just a dumb comment from a dumb poster.
Still pushing that strawman?? Or just a weak deflection effort, as Plane pummels you with logic & common sense?
-
Clinton did not reduce taxes on the wealthy, to start with.
I seem to remember hearing of a reduction on the capitol gains tax ....
Not sure.
But ...
What is the functional diffrence between a stimulus to the economy by government spending , and a stimulous to the economy by reduction in capitol gains or income tax?
-
Clinton did not reduce taxes on the wealthy, to start with.
I seem to remember hearing of a reduction on the capitol gains tax ....
Not sure.
No, you can be sure:
In 1997, the Republican-led Congress passed a tax-relief and deficit-reduction bill that was resisted but ultimately signed by President Clinton. The 1997 bill:
* Lowered the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent;
* Created a new $500 child tax credit;
* Established the new Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits to reduce the after-tax costs of higher education;
* Extended the air transportation excise taxes;
* Phased in an increase in the estate tax exemption from $600,000 to $1 million;
* Established Roth IRAs and increased the income limits for deductible IRAs;
* Established education IRAs;
* Conformed AMT depreciation lives to regular tax lives; and
* Phased in a 15 cent-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax. . .
That...would make Xo yet again, wrong (http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutmyths.htm)
-
Were the reductions greater than the increases?
Clinton wants to see Obama reelected. So do I.
And Obama failed no math classes.
-
Were the reductions greater than the increases?
apparently not as it relates to "the rich", as well as the fact it completely debunks your original claim that "Clinton did not reduce taxes on the wealthy, to start with"
And Obama failed no math classes.
Still pushing that deflective strawman?? :o
-
It is not a deflection, it is the title of this entire thread.
Can't you read?
-
Can't you comprehend? But hey, when your arguments are built on debunked straw, you devolve into what you do best....deflect & insult
-
Do we know at all whether President Obama did well at math in colledge?
The only indicators we have right now is that he is very liberal, which always indicates poor math skill, but can't be considered proof.
And...
He isn't bragging about his colledge grades, if he was valdictorian we would have heard a lot about it.
I don't suppose his professors are granting interviews.
-
No president in history has ever bragged about his grades. That would be seen rightfully as a sign that the guy was a dick.
The Republicans since Nixon have failed at balancing budgets as well. Clinton did better than the rest, though.
Neither party has been exemplary at balancing the budget, but it is certainly not due to any president's grades in math class.
-
No president in history has ever bragged about his grades. That would be seen rightfully as a sign that the guy was a dick.
The Republicans since Nixon have failed at balancing budgets as well. Clinton did better than the rest, though.
Neither party has been exemplary at balancing the budget, but it is certainly not due to any president's grades in math class.
I think a president having little understanding of math wopuld cause him to have little understanding of money, and I would indeed expect this to make a diffrence to fiscal policy.
Is it usual for the President to make a bigger secret of his GPA than the identitys of his secret agents?
-
The Republicans since Nixon have failed at balancing budgets as well. Clinton did better than the rest, though.
Dragged into it by a GOP run House. FACT, it was the House's budget signed by Clinton....not Clinton's budget proposal accepted by the House, supported by the GOP controlled Senate, and then returned to Clinton for his signature
Damn, those pesky facts
-
Again, Clinton was in charge.
Democrats are more fiscally responsible than Republicans.
-
Yea, Clinton was in charge....of signing Fiscally responsible budgets that came out of the Republican led congress. Not only were they not his budgets, but he signed off on tax cuts that helped the dastardly "rich", thus blowing both your erroneous claims that Clinton did not reduce taxes on the wealthy to start with, or that Democrats are more fiscally responsible than Republicans. CA has led the way on how fiscally IRRESPONSIBLE the Democrats have been, punctuated by what the Dems did the 1st 2 years of Obama, when he had full Democrat majorities
Sorry....go fish
-
California is a special case because of the Proposition 13 laws and the referendums. Democrats in CA are not identical to Democrats elsewhere. California has its own peculiar problems.
-
California is only further down the same path that most of us are on.
-
California is a special case because of the Proposition 13 laws and the referendums. Democrats in CA are not identical to Democrats elsewhere. California has its own peculiar problems.
Which of course completely debunks the yet again made erroneous claim on your part, that somehow Democrats are superior in fiscal responsibility to the GOP, when you've just conceded how currently its the Dems who've been running CA into the ground, on top of the GOP having been running DC legsilature when Clinton signed their budgets, while the Dems were fully in charge the 1st 2 years of Obama, and passed every fricken spending bill, that now has the country in more debt, then its ever been
California is only further down the same path that most of us are on.
Precisely
-
Obama’s eventual middle-class tax increase
September 7th, 2012, · · posted by Mark Landsbaum
Conventional thinking has it that President Barack Obama wants to increase taxes on rich people, the ones he insist must “pay their fair share.”
But as Republican Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan has made clear, raising taxes on a few thousand millionaires and billionaires would pay only a pittance of what it takes to make the federal government hum along, and certainly fill just a tiny portion of the annual deficit, let alone the long-term debt.
As the Wall Street Journal put it, “Every time Mr. Obama warns about Mr. Ryan ‘gutting’ this or that ‘investment,’ what he’s not saying but is unavoidably implying is that taxes must be far higher to finance this spending. Assuming he can read the budget tables, he knows the government has made promises it cannot mathematically keep—but he hopes nobody notices.”
A recent study by the Tax Policy Center of the not-at-all-right-wing Brookings-Urban Institute concluded that even if the top taxpayers’ rates hit 100 percent, which even this president won’t do, it wouldn’t achieve debt-reduction targets.
So, who would pay these inevitable tax increases?
As the Wall Street Journal said: “Another way of putting it is that the rich aren’t nearly rich enough to finance Mr. Obama’s spending ambitions. Sooner rather than later, Washington will come for the middle class, because that’s where the real money is (http://orangepunch.ocregister.com/2012/09/07/obamas-eventual-middle-class-tax-increase/71110/).”
-
Romney claims that he can raise sufficient revenue by just removing deductions paid mostly by the rich. He can even cut taxes and increase military spending. perhaps President Obama knows his secret.
-
Anyones plan will work better in an expanding economy than in a shrinking one.
Who really believes that the application of more leeches will really help expand the economy.
-
A faulty metaphor.
-
Leeches are a faulty metaphor for taxation?
I thought it rather traditional, conventional , in proximity of trite.
What would you think a perfect metaphore for taxation?
-
Taxation is a service charge, of course.
If you wish to live in any orderly society, you will need a government to provide services.
If you consider taxes to all be unjust, move to Somalia.
-
So who again is pushing the idea of abolishing all taxes??
-
So who again is pushing the idea of abolishing all taxes??
Anarchists!
http://www.bigheadpress.com/ (http://www.bigheadpress.com/)
Here is the theroy, well behaved people don't need a lot of government.
So government needs bad behavior for justifacation.
-
So who again is pushing the idea of abolishing all taxes??
=============
Anyone who believes that taxes are like leeches.
Humans do not need any leeches at all.
The argument is that leeches are a poor metaphor for taxes.
Are you really so dumb you cannot figure it out?
-
Are you really so ignorant, you'd think an analogy is equal to advocating abolishment of all taxes?? You're calling Plane an Anarchist?? Wow Plane, I never would have guessed....you're so mild mannered, and all ;)
-
I will have to admit that leeches are unlike taxes in some ways .
Taxes do not make good fishbait.
-
I am not calling anyone anything. I simply said that taxes are not leeches. Referring to taxes as leeches is neither accurate nor poetic.
Bad behavior from at least some people in any society is a given. There have been no societies without someone behaving badly. Governments need to contain thieves, assassins and swindlers, provocateurs and con men, as well as to repel invaders.
All the supposed Edens of the world are either long ago or far away, just as the greatest heroes are historic.
Elect Ron Paul President and you will not get anything resembling utopia. Even if Paul is right, everyone who ever got a dollar from the government would likely oppose him and he would have close to zero support in Congress.
I discovered that in Ecuador Simon Bolivar was only 5"4" tall. Sucre was also a bit of a gnome. There are uniforms that pretty much confirm this. He looked good on a horse, but the best looking paintings, it turns out, were all painted by people who never saw him in person, or his horse, either.
Everyone knows that Sucre was assassinated by some rival, but why gets a lot of different answers, none of them terribly convincing.
-
I am not calling anyone anything.
YOU JUST DID
sirs; So who again is pushing the idea of abolishing all taxes??
=============
xo; Anyone who believes that taxes are like leeches
Plane is the one who referenced leeches in an analogy to taxes
plane; Leeches are a faulty metaphor for taxation?
I simply said that taxes are not leeches. Referring to taxes as leeches is neither accurate nor poetic.
Yet, you then followed up that if someone doesn't like taxes, they should move to Somalia, as if someone, Plane apparently) didn't want to pay any taxes or supported the idea. Which brings us full circle;
sirs; So who again is pushing the idea of abolishing all taxes??
=============
xo; Anyone who believes that taxes are like leeches
Nice try, but they're your words, not mine
Bad behavior from at least some people in any society is a given. There have been no societies without someone behaving badly. Governments need to contain thieves, assassins and swindlers, provocateurs and con men, as well as to repel invaders.
AGAIN, WHO THE HELL IS ARGUEING FOR NO GOVERNMENT?? Why do you keep arguing a position, no one has made??
Elect Ron Paul President and you will not get anything resembling utopia.
He's NOT a candiate for President, so why would you reference his being elected?? Nor would I even remotely come to support him...unless of course the only other option were Obama, then I'd have to consider Paul.
I discovered that in Ecuador Simon Bolivar was only 5"4" tall. Sucre was also a bit of a gnome. There are uniforms that pretty much confirm this. He looked good on a horse, but the best looking paintings, it turns out, were all painted by people who never saw him in person, or his horse, either.
Everyone knows that Sucre was assassinated by some rival, but why gets a lot of different answers, none of them terribly convincing.
Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with what's being talked/debated about here :o
-
If leeches are always desirable, and leeches are like taxes, then all taxes are also undesirable.
If there are no taxes, there is no government, except in Qatar Kuwait and the UAE.
Use your teensy little brain, sirs.
-
So you're saying Plane is an anarchist....yea, we got that that erroneous & ridiculous claim 1st time. too bad he's not, nor is he advocating any sort of abolishment in either all taxes or all Government. Why you keep debunking positions never made, merely keeps demonstrating how non-existent your position actually is.
But cudos on some more of your 3rd grade snarking. That, you have down to a science
-
Plane is simply asking silly questions and making silly comments.
Taxes are unlike leeches in nearly every way.
I did not say Plane was an anarchist: I said that his simile "taxes are like leeches" is inaccurate about both taxes and leeches.
-
Plane is simply asking silly questions and making silly comments.
THEN WHO'S PUSHING THE IDEA OF WANTING TO ABOLISH ALL THINGS GOVERNMENT AND TAXES, THAT YOU KEEP ARGUING AGAINST??
-
ANYONE who claims that all taxes are like leeches, of course.
-
Which is what Plane did, in his analogy, and why you responded to him as you did......so, apparently, according to you, Plane's some kind of mild mannered Anarchist
Here's a news flash for you......he was merely using an analogy, that was pretty darn clever, btw. Now you may disagree with the analogy, but to claim it equates to plane wanting to see an end to all Government and taxes, is pretty ignorant
In other words.....NO ONE HERE IN THE SALOON IS PUSHING THE IDEA OF WANTING TO ABOLISH ALL THINGS GOVERNMENT AND TAXES, THAT YOU KEEP ARGUING AGAINST
-
Leeches are beneficial for certain medical conditions .
But in timesz past, leeches were the prescription for many many medical conditions, so much so that "leech" became a nick name for doctors.
When George Washington was on his deathbed , probly suffering from Strep throat and possibly also Pneumonia , bleeding was prescribed , tho the device used was a scarifier rather than a leech.
Leeches (Bleeding)were sometimes prescribed for anemia even.
That is what makes leeches and apt metaphore for taxes, that some experts beleive in them so much that they get prescribed even for conditions that they will worsten.
Leeches are also generally a tax on a persons system so I count them two ways apt.
Now and them tho, you do need a leech and nothing elese will do.
It is when you get them without that need that they are most like taxes.
-
Well summized, but let's put Xo's mind at ease, even more so
Do you, Plane, wish this country to be rid of all government & taxes? That seems to be what Xo is arguing against
-
Well summized, but let's put Xo's mind at ease, even more so
Do you, Plane, wish this country to be rid of all government & taxes? That seems to be what Xo is arguing against
What?
I am sorry I was just polishing my 30 year civil service pin and thinking about the answer I should give.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm.....