[screener]

You really have to laugh at some people.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Dividend and Interest income is for the majority of people who earn it called: THEIR RETIREMENT.

I'm not talking about the majority of people over 67, I'm talking about the people exploiting a tax loophole to take advantage of something intended for people retiring.

If you're 45 making $20 million in executive bonuses, then simply living on interest income from your investments, that is your income. You're not 67, so it needs to be taxed as regular income, not as a retirement.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The vast majority of that is in IRAs, which wouldn't be subject to income taxes on dividends and interest.

For people intending on retirement, yes. You assume a pretty big penalty if you take it out before hitting 67.

I'm talking about people exploiting non-taxable and low interest sources of income intended for retirees.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Does that mean that lefties are to smart to listen to blathering morons spewing opinions as fact?

They do seem to repeat the lies and spin, and don't seem to know many details which would put their heros in a bad light.

Originally Posted by sek929 

Is the fact that the talking heads on Fox get so much attention a good thing or bad thing for Conservatives?

That IS the 20 billion dollar question. I think that the viewers of FOX used to listen to the lefty's but have drifted away from the lies and spin that didn't match the reality. The "recovery Summer" is a good example of Left Hype and BS that flies in the face of the facts.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

That IS the 20 billion dollar question. I think that the viewers of FOX used to listen to the lefty's but have drifted away from the lies and spin that didn't match the reality.

WTF?

It's all spin from both sides.

Why don't you realize this? Fox News and CNN both sell entertainment as news, yet you seem to think one tells the truth and one is nothing but spin.

Seriously, you are being incredibly hypocritical of damning one info-tainment source and praising another. You preference of one load of BS over another isn't something to be proud of.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Does that mean that lefties are to smart to listen to blathering morons spewing opinions as fact?

Like Michael Moore? Algore? Rachel somebody-or-other?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

If you're 45 making $20 million in executive bonuses, then simply living on interest income from your investments, that is your income. You're not 67, so it needs to be taxed as regular income, not as a retirement.

Who is it you imagine does this, isn't taxed on the $20 million dollar salary (bonus or otherwise) and only lives off the interest? And of the 0.0000000008% of the population that actually does something like this, what business is it of yours anyway?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The vast majority of that is in IRAs, which wouldn't be subject to income taxes on dividends and interest.

And rightly so. The point was just that; that these things aren't subject to income taxes, nor should they be. Someone's weird jealousy over a tiny fraction of people that live off of interest and dividends on their investments at an age earlier than retirement, doesn't change that. This is just yet another example of the stuck-on-stupid distraction over taxes. IF ONLY the greedbags in Washington could get their hands on dividends and interest earnings.. why, they'd...they'd...



...run up an EVEN HIGHER deficit and then (as always) claim they need EVEN MORE of someone else's money that they don't current have their grubby paws on, and their sycophant cheerleaders would fall for that ruse too.

[screener]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

They do seem to repeat the lies and spin, and don't seem to know many details which would put their heros in a bad light.

That IS the 20 billion dollar question. I think that the viewers of FOX used to listen to the lefty's but have drifted away from the lies and spin that didn't match the reality. The "recovery Summer" is a good example of Left Hype and BS that flies in the face of the facts.

It's called not letting the lies and spin take root in sane peoples head.
The morons are another story.

I suppose the muslin spin is your reality.

Ya gotta laugh .

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

And rightly so. The point was just that; that these things aren't subject to income taxes, nor should they be.

No the point is that removing the 'dividends and interest' loophole by taxing those things the same as regular income wouldn't affect IRAs, where most peoples' retirement money is, because IRAs are tax-advantaged (independently of the loophole in question). That loophole can safely be closed without harming ma and pa kettle.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No the point is that removing the 'dividends and interest' loophole by taxing those things the same as regular income wouldn't affect IRAs, where most peoples' retirement money is, because IRAs are tax-advantaged (independently of the loophole in question). That loophole can safely be closed without harming ma and pa kettle.

Not everyone's money is in an IRA. There are many investment vehicles that pay dividends, and many people living off that money as their retirement. (IE: anyone that had a brain and wasn't a typical moron with their money during their working years).

As for interest, once more, there are plenty of people who were smart enough to sock away enough for retirement to live at least partially on interest, without burning through their principal.

Removing these things, and letting politicians get their grubby hands on more money that's none of their friggen concern (nor any of their busybody sycophants), won't help you, won't help anyone else, and ironically won't even help the government which ALWAYS spends way above and beyond what it ever manages to confiscate. In fact, all it will ever do is remove even more incentives for people to invest in the first place.

Why is it the left is always focused on how to be bigger suck-ups to the government and figure out new ways for them to steal more money from private citizens, yet NEVER addresses the fact that goverment already has plenty of money to do what it's charged with- just not perpetuate an endless spending spree? The focus is always "How can we bend over and give them even more (of someone else's money)?" Never: "Stop spending so damn much. Taxes aren't tools of social policy, nor is tax money a ticket to an endless spending free-for-all."

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Not everyone's money is in an IRA.

But these are the exceptions.

As for interest, once more, there are plenty of people who were smart enough to sock away enough for retirement to live at least partially on interest, without burning through their principal.

Actually I don't even know why "interest" is included. Isn't interest already taxed the same as earned income?

Removing these things, and letting politicians get their grubby hands on more money that's none of their friggen concern (nor any of their busybody sycophants), won't help you, won't help anyone else

Closing loopholes can forestall tax increases. That helps everyone who pays taxes but doesn't benefit from the loophole.
Allowing CEOs to abuse tax loopholes that were intended to help struggling retirees won't help you either, unless you're abusing the loophole too. Are you?

Why is it the left is always focused on how to be bigger suck-ups to the government

Why is it the right is always focused on how to be bigger suck-ups to billionaires?

yet NEVER addresses the fact that goverment already has plenty of money

Hamstringing tax collectors won't make the government stop overspending. The right thought that it would 30 years ago, but history has proven it false. So it's no answer to the question of the rich getting a free pass on income taxes.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But these are the exceptions.

Oh bullshit. Most people's investments aren't in the form of an IRA, and an IRA is usually just part of an overall investment strategy, not the whole thing.

Actually I don't even know why "interest" is included. Isn't interest already taxed the same as earned income?

Depends on what it was earned on. It's reported to the IRS, but not necessarily taxed.

Closing loopholes can forestall tax increases.

Not allowing socialist busybodies to destroy every investment vehicle that exists is not a 'loophole'. One of these days you busibodies will wake up to the realization that you and your precious government don't own everything else that everyone makes, nor by virtue of you being the most whiney and annoying among us, are you entitled to it.

Why is it the right is always focused on how to be bigger suck-ups to billionaires?

Yeah, like the government that the left sucks up to is 'poor'. The left sucks up to the greediest bunch of greedbags on the planet. The right doesn't care what a bunch of 'billionares' (Gee, the whole lot of them you can practically count on your fingers) do with their OWN money. The left sucks up and bend over for a government that wastes EVERYONE ELSE'S MONEY, not a penny of their own.

Hamstringing tax collectors won't make the government stop overspending.

Aww *sniffle* the poor, poor tax collectors! Poor, poor government! Whatever will they do without everyone's investment earnings? Spend untold trillions anyway, or starve? Quick, someone break out the world's smallest violin (And lefties, get your kneepads out), the poor poor tax collectors are being hamstrung by not having deep enough access into everyone's wallet, savings, bank account, property, etc. That your darling Uncle Sam can't raid your savings account at will is a loophole.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Oh bullshit. Most people's investments aren't in the form of an IRA, and an IRA is usually just part of an overall investment strategy, not the whole thing.

Yeah, and what's the rest of it? Their house (untaxed except the extremely wealthy) and some mutual funds (untaxed until they sell in retirement). A simple rule like an age limit (already implemented for retirement accounts) would cover 99% of this.

For the other people who are doing lots of trading before retirement, who make a not-insignificant amount of money by doing so, how is that not their income?

Depends on what it was earned on. It's reported to the IRS, but not necessarily taxed.

What's an example? I haven't had one, so I don't know.

Not allowing socialist busybodies to destroy every investment vehicle that exists is not a 'loophole'. One of these days you busibodies will wake up to the realization that you and your precious government don't own everything else that everyone makes, nor by virtue of you being the most whiney and annoying among us, are you entitled to it.

I thought the right didn't care about the billionaires. If you don't care, then why all the fuss? Oh boo hoo, the poor billionaires. Right?

Look I want to reduce waste and spending as much as you do, but that's irrelevant to the question of who pays more than whom. Given that taxes exist, I don't see why one select group should get a free ride, especially when in practice they have the most to spare (although the high percentage at the bottom who get a free ride bothers me too; does it bother you?). Besides that the rule just caters to the a-holes who write the laws, so it's just plain old cronyism. If the Dems were the ones most benefiting, you'd throw a spaz over it. you know it's true

Here's a thought exercise for you: lower the income tax to be the same as capital gains, and merge them. Does this make you happy, or do you want to complain some more?

Aww *sniffle* the poor, poor tax collectors! Poor, poor government! Whatever will they do without everyone's investment earnings? Spend untold trillions anyway, or starve?

They're going to collect that much more of people's "earned income." duh.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yeah, and what's the rest of it? Their house (untaxed except the extremely wealthy)

I can tell you don't own property if you think there aren't property taxes!

and some mutual funds (untaxed until they sell in retirement).

Gee, you mean untaxed until actually used for what they're intended for? How generous of the government!

A simple rule like an age limit (already implemented for retirement accounts) would cover 99% of this.

Busibodies minding their own business instead of jealously wanting the government to fleece what isn't theirs would cover 100% of this.

For the other people who are doing lots of trading before retirement, who make a not-insignificant amount of money by doing so, how is that not their income?

Since people ARE taxed on profits realized from trading, why does it matter?

What's an example? I haven't had one, so I don't know.

To my knowledge: Municipal bonds, certain money market savings accounts, and Credit Union savings account interest.

I thought the right didn't care about the billionaires. If you don't care, then why all the fuss? Oh boo hoo, the poor billionaires. Right?

Do you know any billionaires? Ever even met one? Been in any way shape, matter or form affected in your life by one? I'm betting that chances are you wouldn't know billionaires even exist and/or couldn't point out on your own where a single one resides without reading it from elsewhere. (Probably some other busybody who themselves actually isn't affected by any).

In other words: billionaires likely have NO IMPACT at all on your life. And yet here you are, hand-wringing over billionaires as if they're somehow starving you to death. They must have all those billions that would otherwise be yours, right? I mean, you probably can't tell me what it is you actually do to have earned all those billions yourself. Is it that your just sooooo damned talented? People line up to get advice and do business with you, they just pay someone else the billions for it, right? What is it you do that those billions should be yours to dictate, and not someone elses? Please enlighten us.

So you'll hand-wring over a tiny fraction of the population (who in REALITY -not leftwing fantasy- probably pay more taxes or pay more salaries that pay more taxes on a daily basis than you do in a lifetime) because some group of politicians has found that it's a good distraction to keep you from ever focusing too hard on how much over-spending they're doing with YOUR money, or anyone else's.

Let me know the next time one of those ohhh so evil billionaires create a new entitlement that adds another deduction box to your paycheck, and automagically hoovers another chunk of your check away, without any product or service being exchanged.

Meanwhile, your government that you cheerlead for can do that to you ON A WHIM. So keep on cheerleading: "RAH RAH RAH! Take my money so government officials with six figure salaries can keep retiring with multi-7 figure parachutes- ON MY DIME!" Keep cheerleading so they can tax you up the rear for a 'healthcare' plan that NONE OF THEM WILL GO ANYWHERE NEAR THEMSELVES! Keep cheerleading so bureaucrats doing the same jobs for 2x the pay of their private sector counterparts can retire with 5x the bennies- in UNFUNDED mandates! " RAH RAH! RAH!" And dammit, get those bottom 50% paying for all that government waste too! "RAH! RAH! RAH!"

But hey, somehow you're reeeeeeally sticking it to those billionaires, by cheerleading for the public trough, aren't you?

Look I want to reduce waste and spending as much as you do, but that's irrelevant to the question of who pays more than whom. Given that taxes exist, I don't see why one select group should get a free ride, especially when in practice they have the most to spare (although the high percentage at the bottom who get a free ride bothers me too; does it bother you?).

No, because all of this 'free ride' nonsense, is just that, nonsense. We've been over and over and over again, many times, just exactly who pays what in taxes. Your own statement above betrays the bogusness of your argument- that you know a high percentage at the bottom get a free ride, therefore EVERYONE can't be getting a free ride,-taxes DO get paid, and the government makes trillions off of taxes- so who is paying the taxes? A simple look into the IRS's own figures reveals it: the wealthy DO pay most of the taxes, which is obvious. Yes, the middle class gets socked heavily too, but this isn't at the expense of the 'rich' not paying in even higher levels (FACT) but just another byproduct of the fact that government takes more than enough money from people in taxes.

Nice that you actually a knowledge the spending and waste problem. Now if you can just get the step 2 and realize that waste and spending problems aren't cured by giving wasteful spendthrifts MORE MONEY! It's cured by making wasteful spendthrifts make do with what they have, or better yet, getting rid of them in favor for people with fiscal responsibility and accountability.
.

I personally don't want the bottom 50% to pay more taxes, and am not bothered by it, because I know that GOVERNMENT ALREADY HAS ENOUGH MONEY! (Something the left clearly just can't fathom!" RAH! RAH! RAH!") The government stealing more of the people's money -poor, rich, middle class, whatever- isn't a solution and never has been, never will be.

I'd ask you why you want to take more money from the bottom 50% of earners? What is it about government that compels you to worry so much about it, at the expense of everyone else's belongings, both rich and poor? Are you worried all those Senators who earn wages in the 200,000 range, yet somehow emerge from their terms as multi-millionaires are going to starve? Is it that you're worried that enough of them won't be able to cheat enough of their own taxes, and scoff about it when caught? They won't be abler to funnel enough government money to their own grandchildren's college funds? Hire enough paper-pushers at DOUBLE the salaries and 5x the benefits of the private sector- for the SAME positions?

What exactly is your fear? That an entity like the Federal government that's operated in complete "tits up" mode for decades will suddenly go 'tits up?"

Besides that the rule just caters to the a-holes who write the laws, so it's just plain old cronyism. If the Dems were the ones most benefiting, you'd throw a spaz over it. you know it's true

Who says they aren't? Now I guess you're back to the old standby, "Only Republicans are rich!" Meanwhile, it's been shown that the wealthiest a-holes "who write the laws" tend to be Democrats.

It seems to me most Democrat positions on most issues are always based on narrow stereotypes, myths, distortions, and of course plain old fashioned busybody jealousy. When those things turn out to be not as black and white as you want them to be, then it's as if you don't know what to do, so you just keep repeating the same old crap again, like it'll just magically become fact because you spout it often enough.

Here's a thought exercise for you: lower the income tax to be the same as capital gains, and merge them. Does this make you happy, or do you want to complain some more?

Wait, as low as capital gains are currently, or as 'low' as the current crop of socialists want to raise them to? Another 'burn it at both ends' argument: in the next thread it'll be all about how "Booo hooo!! Capital gains taxes are too low! Wahhh! Let's raise them! Break out the kneepads! RAH! RAH! RAH! Gooooo team big government!"

They're going to collect that much more of people's "earned income." duh.

"RAH! RAH! RAH!"

[Uncle Skeleton]

Too long, didn't read it. Quantity over quality. Irrelevant distractions. Case in point, when someone shows you're being illogical about federal taxes, you switch to state and city taxes. Then you toss on an ad hom or two and hope no one noticed. Not buying it.

Feel free to try again when you can stay on topic. I'll get you started: lower taxes good, uneven taxes bad.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Who is it you imagine does this, isn't taxed on the $20 million dollar salary (bonus or otherwise) and only lives off the interest?

They're taxed, but ridiculously low compared to most people. Warren Buffet, for example.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

And of the 0.0000000008% of the population that actually does something like this, what business is it of yours anyway?

It's a significantly higher percentage than that, and it's my business because I'm picking up their tab in higher income taxes for my tax bracket. It's my business because I make less money because people who make a lot more can afford to abuse the system at my expense.

If I'm making $250,000 a year, I shouldn't be paying 35% in taxes while someone making $40 million is only paying 14%.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

They're taxed, but ridiculously low compared to most people. Warren Buffet, for example.

I see you're still relying on that old disproven myth about Warren Buffet vs. his secretary. Exactly what I was talking about, about how lefties rely on myths, rather than facts.

That old bit was repeated by every lefty busybody Big Gov cheerleader, but no one ever bothered to look into it. Finally, when it was looked into, it was shown that there was no way his secretary was paying as high taxes as was quoted- people merely did the math (something no lefty cheerleader would ever do) calculated her salary, her marital status, the taxes due on the amounts given, the state taxes in Nebraska where Buffet lives, etc. etc. and found that she paid a much lower percentage than was claimed- or else she simply doesn't do her taxes properly, or somehow can't find an H&R Block to do it for her.

It was a myth, and yet you're still going on about Warren Buffet like he was the typical "Billionaire next door". Warren Buffet has no affect on your life what-so-ever, has never taken a solitary DIME from you unless you've given it to him for some service one of his companies provides, and pays more in taxes (and the salaries of those paying taxes) on any given DAY than you do in your entire lifetime.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by sek929 

WTF?

It's all spin from both sides.

Why don't you realize this? Fox News and CNN both sell entertainment as news, yet you seem to think one tells the truth and one is nothing but spin.

Seriously, you are being incredibly hypocritical of damning one info-tainment source and praising another. You preference of one load of BS over another isn't something to be proud of.

*ALL* LOL yeah you have no idea how much you've been brainwashed by the left to think that "ALL" of it is spin and lies. Why is it, after years of lefty spin and lies have the lefty media had such a loss in viewership? Perhaps folks are just tired of being lied to, and see FOX as not as bad. Seems the majority of folks are FOX viewers. Is that whats really your problem?

[besson3c]

So we're back to the "viewership = righteousness" argument once again?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It's a significantly higher percentage than that, and it's my business because I'm picking up their tab in higher income taxes for my tax bracket. It's my business because I make less money because people who make a lot more can afford to abuse the system at my expense.

Complete rubbish, and a perfect example of how class envy tactics have worked- you'll ignore a government that fleeces you blind, so long as you think someone else is getting fleeced who 'deserves it'. Sad.

If I'm making $250,000 a year, I shouldn't be paying 35% in taxes while someone making $40 million is only paying 14%.

This cracked me up- if you're making $250,000 a year... then congrats sport! Welcome to the TOP 2% of taxpayers! According to your own Big Govt. Cheerleader team- YOU'RE NOT PAYING YOUR FAIR SHARE ALREADY!!! And here you are bitching about 35%! What? JUST 35%? According to team Big Govt, you're getting away with murder! What, you didn't get the memo that 250k made you rich? Another few grand and you'd BE in Warren Buffet's top 1%!

So basically, this just goes to show that class envy just makes those that fall for it endlessly focus on the guy 'richer' than they are, rather than their own situation. What you've clearly never considered is that all the same class-envy crowd earning less than $250,000 a year looks at the person earning that and goes "WAHHHH! That guy isn't paying his fair share! His 35% should be 50% and more! WAHHH!"

You're not paying your fair share. You're rich. You're greedy. You whining about 35% is you being greedy, when you should be paying 60%, 70%, whatever. Obama himself thinks you're a greedy bastard who he needs to fleece and redistribute what you own.

See how that works? No, of course not. Stay focused on Warren Buffet.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

*ALL* LOL yeah you have no idea how much you've been brainwashed by the left to think that "ALL" of it is spin and lies. Why is it, after years of lefty spin and lies have the lefty media had such a loss in viewership? Perhaps folks are just tired of being lied to, and see FOX as not as bad. Seems the majority of folks are FOX viewers. Is that whats really your problem?

My problem is that you are apparently the most ridiculous person, righty or lefty, that these forums have ever seen.

You say the MSM is controlled by the left, yet everyone watches Fox News. That makes no f**king sense.

When I say that all 24/7 news outlets are filled with hyperbole and opinion tarted up as fact, you say that it's only because I am brainwashed by the Left, which would in turn make me think the Left is feeding me BS. That makes no f**king sense.

In short, you don't make sense, and most of your 'arguments' contradict each other.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

If I'm making $250,000 a year, I shouldn't be paying 35% in taxes while someone making $40 million is only paying 14%.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

This cracked me up- if you're making $250,000 a year... then congrats sport! Welcome to the TOP 2% of taxpayers! According to your own Big Govt. Cheerleader team- YOU'RE NOT PAYING YOUR FAIR SHARE ALREADY!!! And here you are bitching about 35%! What? JUST 35%? According to team Big Govt, you're getting away with murder! What, you didn't get the memo that 250k made you rich? Another few grand and you'd BE in Warren Buffet's top 1%!

Soooo, you're not going to respond to his perfectly sensible observation? Of course, not, you never do.

[Uncle Skeleton]

His response is obvious: tax cheating is a victimless crime because the government is large and faceless and besides which deserves all the abuse it can accumulate because it always does everything wrong anyways. That the cheating is legal is just gravy.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Someone making $40 million a year doesn't pay a 14% tax rate.

Once more, when you liberals start dealing in actual FACTS, not making things up, get back to us.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

His response is obvious: tax cheating is a victimless crime because the government is large and faceless and besides which deserves all the abuse it can accumulate because it always does everything wrong anyways. That the cheating is legal is just gravy.

You're response is obvious: pull the idea that someone making $40 million dollars is automatically "a tax cheat" right out of your ass, as you've done, then go from there.

Like I said, Liberals- myths, lies, half-truths (at best) and then fall back on more myths.

And I'll once again remind you- it's you libs that have demonized people making $250,000 a year (the top 2%) as 'rich' and saying that they aren't paying their "fair share". Now suddenly 35% is too high?
More burning it at both ends and hoping no one notices.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Soooo, you're not going to respond to his perfectly sensible observation? Of course, not, you never do.

I will then.

When you go out to a meal with your friends, paying your "fair share" is paying the total bill divided by the amount of people attending.

When you have cake with your friends or family, your "fair share" is the size of the cake divided by the amount of people eating it.

When you travel to a show with your friends, your "fair share" is the amount of gas it took to get there and back divided by the number of people in the car.

When you light up a fat one with your friends, your "fair share" is an equal distribution of toke time shared between each person present.

I could go on and on with numerous examples.

So.

$250,000 x 35% is $87,500 in taxes.
$40,000,000 x 14% is $5,600,000 in taxes.

Cheque for $5,512,500 made payable to the IRS please. Then we'll talk about "fair share".

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I will then.

Why bother? The 14% figure is 100% ass-pulled in the first place. A person earning that kind of jack pays up to 60% in taxes.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Why bother? The 14% figure is 100% ass-pulled in the first place.

I know. But even with the figures provided, it doesn't make any sense - one person paying $87.5k for exactly the same services that the person paying $5.6m pays.

It's interesting to note how the word "fair" changes according to how it's used, no?
"Fair share" = you pay more taxes.
"Fair representation" = you get the same representation.

Lefties... They make my f'ing teeth itch.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Someone making $40 million a year doesn't pay a 14% tax rate.

Sorry, you're right. It's 17.7% tax on an estimated income of $46 million.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Once more, when you liberals start dealing in actual FACTS, not making things up, get back to us.

That was directly from Warren Buffet. I suppose he could have made it up.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

A person An honest person earning that kind of jack pays up to 60% in taxes.

Fixed that for you. They pay less than half that in taxes.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Complete rubbish, and a perfect example of how class envy tactics have worked- you'll ignore a government that fleeces you blind, so long as you think someone else is getting fleeced who 'deserves it'. Sad.

I have no class envy, and I'm not ignoring what Obama did. Being a "millionaire" means very little in the San Francisco Bay Area, and his tax system is complete horse sh*t. Deciding arbitrarily who is rich, then taxing them more doesn't solve anything because the majority of their money is not taxable in the same way as everyone else. He could make income tax 99% for the rich, and it wouldn't change anything for the people in the higher tier.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

*snip*

You seem to have this preconceived notion than I'm a huge Obama fan.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You're response is obvious: pull the idea that someone making $40 million dollars is automatically "a tax cheat" right out of your ass, as you've done, then go from there.

You said "billionaires keeping their own money doesn't affect you" exactly 100.00 times in this thread, I didn't pull that out of any ass

But it does affect us, in the same way tax cheats affect us. In the same way that retail theft affects all other paying retail customers. In the same way that insurance fraud affects the premiums of all insurance customers. The costs of that overhead are passed on to the group.

If I don't pay my legally-required taxes, does it affect you, yes or no? Unbalanced laws about other people's taxes affects you in the same way as tax cheats, those costs are passed on to the rest of us.

And I'll once again remind you- it's you libs that have demonized people making $250,000 a year (the top 2%) as 'rich' and saying that they aren't paying their "fair share". Now suddenly 35% is too high?
More burning it at both ends and hoping no one notices.

You're the only one making this about "demonization." Taxing something doesn't mean you think it's a "demon." You pulled that idea of "demonizing" right out of your ass.

[CharlesS]

I never thought I'd see someone attack "lefties" and basically call for communism in the same post, but I guess life is full of surprises.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I will then.

When you go out to a meal with your friends, and you're a millionaire and they all make 40 or 50 grand a year, you magnanimously pay more of the bill than everyone else, because that money means a lot less to you than it does to them.

...

When you travel to a show with your friends, and you're a millionaire and they all make far less than you do, you magnanimously cover the amount of gas it took to get there, and let them all pay for some cheaper stuff, because you're not a cheap bastard.

Fixinated

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Fixinated

That's called charity, not "fair share".

There is nothing wrong with charity. But it has to be voluntary.

-t

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So we're back to the "viewership = righteousness" argument once again?

Human nature to not want to associate with liars.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by sek929 

My problem is that you are apparently the most ridiculous person, righty or lefty, that these forums have ever seen.

You say the MSM is controlled by the left, yet everyone watches Fox News. That makes no f**king sense.

When I say that all 24/7 news outlets are filled with hyperbole and opinion tarted up as fact, you say that it's only because I am brainwashed by the Left, which would in turn make me think the Left is feeding me BS. That makes no f**king sense.

In short, you don't make sense, and most of your 'arguments' contradict each other.

did you even READ your blather? You have no way of knowing if you are being lied to unless you get away from the lefty nooze outlets and hear the other side. You are also wrong (reading problem?) that I was using absolutes like you are. Words do mean something.

[ort888]

So how do you know if you are being lied to or not? Doesn't the exact same thing apply to you? Or are you just so enlightened that you can see through everything, unlike us poor ignorant dupes?

[sek929]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

did you even READ your blather? You have no way of knowing if you are being lied to unless you get away from the lefty nooze outlets and hear the other side. You are also wrong (reading problem?) that I was using absolutes like you are. Words do mean something.

READ MY TEXT

I don't listen to lefty news, at all, I don't listen to any of that info-tainment bullsh!t that you apparently love. When it comes to my politics I can side very heavily with conservatives (the real ones) on many issues, but when it comes to social issues I'm all Librul (deal with it)

Not everything falls into your little narrow-minded world of Dems vs Reps.

The 24/7 news outlets (ALL OF THEM) peddle entertainment, hyperbole, and half-truths for F**KING RATINGS!!! Why do you continue to argue the ethics between two ethically bankrupt institutions? Fox News is not going to give me anymore a fair view of politics than CNN. Both will use exaggeration and opinion to hook their viewers because the majority of television viewers are completely retarded. If I watched both I'd be doubly retarded, since either side swings so heavily towards one bias that I'd never get the truth about anything.

I'll give you one last time, one last chance to never assume I'm an Obama-blower, or that I wank to Maddow, because I have said time and time and time and time again that I am not a Democrat or a Republican and that's the truth. The next time you use an obvious fallacy like these in one of you enlightened posts then you will also enter my ignore list, which will have a grand total of one person on it, you.

[ort888]

Ignoring people is serious business.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by sek929 

The 24/7 news outlets (ALL OF THEM) peddle entertainment, hyperbole, and half-truths for F**KING RATINGS!!! Why do you continue to argue the ethics between two ethically bankrupt institutions? Fox News is not going to give me anymore a fair view of politics than CNN. Both will use exaggeration and opinion to hook their viewers because the majority of television viewers are completely retarded. If I watched both I'd be doubly retarded, since either side swings so heavily towards one bias that I'd never get the truth about anything.

You nailed it!

However, I would say that the problem with cable news is not just the ratings-driven bias, but the entire format. It's crazy to me that they have 24 hours a day and they feel compelled to give us constant little sound bytes and borderline A.D.D-friendly fluffy infotainment rather than more thoughtful journalism. I would take an in-depth, extended segment that delves into the complexity of any complex issue (of which there are many to choose from) with bias rather than a little 2 minute scratch-the-surface sort of piece with no bias. One cannot form a balanced and grounded opinion on anything with completely superficial knowledge, but at least with a more in-depth piece a viewer/listener would be required to engage their minds and really think about things, and would probably be more likely to explore this issue themselves.

Complex problems do not always have simple solutions, or else the intellectual lightweights in the tea party groups, Sarah Palin, George Bush Jr., et all would have the answers to the world's problems

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Sorry, you're right. It's 17.7% tax on an estimated income of $46 million.

Taxes are much higher than 17.7% on an income of $46 million- as if we didn't all know that.

Once more, making things up isn't helping you.

That was directly from Warren Buffet. I suppose he could have made it up.

Warren Buffet wasn't talking about income taxes- he also did lie about how much his secretary pays. It was actually 2.4%!!! It was easy to figure out, based on the fact that tax tables, the rate on one's taxable gross earnings is public knowledge, the standard or itemized deductions, etc. 2.4%, not the lie that got passed around and leftists ate up, like usual.

So even if he pays 17% on his earnings, she pays much, much less than him.

Again, making things up doesn't help Warren Buffet's lame arguments either.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You said "billionaires keeping their own money doesn't affect you" exactly 100.00 times in this thread, I didn't pull that out of any ass

And it doesn't.

I also asked you what you think entitles you to have anything to do with what is done with billionaires money? What entitles you to it, over them, the people that did whatever they did to create it in the first place. You still haven't answered. So let's hear it.

What business is it of yours, and why do you think you're entitled to anything to do with some billionaires money? Whining the loudest and most often, and being a jealous busybody doesn't count- that's worthless. It sure as hell isn't worth a billion dollars, or even a single dollar to the country or the economy. So what then?

But it does affect us, in the same way tax cheats affect us.

No it doesn't. Some billionaire doing what he pleases with his own money doesn't affect you in the least- unless its in the jobs that money creates- including possibly your own- or in the jobs created for others when they spend or invest that money. Other than that, it doesn't affect you one iota other than your jealousy.

In the same way that retail theft affects all other paying retail customers.

That's a dumb example. A billionaire putting even fraction of their money in savings, investments, or spending puts all sorts of retail products on shelves, moreso than whatever pittance you invest, save, or spend by comparison.

If you libs are so gung ho to live where no rich people ever put anything into the economy, why is it your ilk never moves to some communist hellhole where you can have that wish granted? Billionaries don't do jack squat for Cuba. According to you libs, Castro is awesome, and Cuba must be wonderful. Why don't you go there? You won't have to be jealous of some billionaire keeping his money (well,except for the ones in power, so among the common slobs anyway) and then you can see for yourself how much that helps you out. I'll look forward to having you drive me around in some old 1950's rustbucket next time I visit. Don't worry, I'll tip you in the good ol' yankee currency, not those worthless pesos. So when are you moving?

If I don't pay my legally-required taxes, does it affect you, yes or no? Unbalanced laws about other people's taxes affects you in the same way as tax cheats, those costs are passed on to the rest of us.

Who's not paying their legally required taxes? More of you pulling things out of your ass?

As Doofy pointed out, even if a billionaire or multi-millionare pays a lower rate than you, they still pay MORE real dollars than you. So you're the one looking like a tax-cheat in comparison.

Again, all this focus on what someone else pays- even when it's much more than you- rather than a focus on ending the fraud and waste that makes it so ALL of the money just goes down a rathole. That's class-envy for you.

You're the only one making this about "demonization." Taxing something doesn't mean you think it's a "demon." You pulled that idea of "demonizing" right out of your ass.

You're the one who pulled the whole 'tax-cheat' thing right out of your ass, with, as usual, not a shred of proof. Yet to you and your 'logic' accusing people who pay more taxes than you of automatically being 'tax cheats' is not demonizing anyone. More of that 'lefty' logic: IE: no logic what-so-ever.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Taxes are much higher than 17.7% on an income of $46 million- as if we didn't all know that.

Some taxes, yes, including income tax.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Warren Buffet wasn't talking about income taxes- he also did lie about how much his secretary pays.

What a coincidence, neither was I. If you scroll up you'll see that I was merely talking about taxable income, not income tax specifically. I even took the time to point out that Obama could raise income tax to 99% and it would have very little affect on top tier earners because their income isn't taxed like most everyone else.

There are a lot of loopholes and gray area investments that will give you optimum return on interest & dividend based income while paying very little in taxes.

If your livelihood doesn't depend on an employer, you can avoid higher taxes all-together.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

So even if he pays 17% on his earnings, she pays much, much less than him.

I don't care if it's a flat, low tax on income across the board, so long as they actually pay it. The idea that if a rich person doesn't pay into the system as much as they should, but it's OK because they pay more into than other people is an acceptable solution, there's something wrong.

They're dodging taxes and spreading the burdon onto the middle class to make up for it. Being rich is not a privilege to screw everyone else out of their money.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I don't care if it's a flat, low tax on income across the board, so long as they actually pay it. The idea that if a rich person doesn't pay into the system as much as they should, but it's OK because they pay more into than other people is an acceptable solution, there's something wrong.

So, who defines "as much as they should"?
Is that the same money for the same services, or more money for the same services?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

They're dodging taxes and spreading the burdon onto the middle class to make up for it.

So you admit that you're mooching off the rich then. Or, at least, would like to.

Good to know.

[sek929]

Where do rich people's money come from then, Narnia?

...or is it they make money off the system of consuming held largely in place by the unwashed masses?

[OAW]

The US taxation system is based upon taxing financial transactions and/or property ownership. It is not based upon taxing people per capita. The more financial transactions (i.e. income, purchases, capital gains, etc.) you have the more tax you pay. The more property you own (in terms of value) the more property taxes you pay. So this discussion about the rich being overtaxed because they pay more in "real dollars" or who's entitled to their money blah blah blah is neither here nor there. They pay more in real dollars because they have more financial transactions and property to tax. Period.

OAW