PDA

View Full Version : Oh the poor Rich soaked with TAXES!


juanni
August 06, 2010, 05:53
All the nonsense about soaking the rich.

from Turbo Timmy's lips
"The most affluent 400 earners in 2007 -- who earned an average of more than $340 million dollars each that year -- paid only 17 percent of their income in tax, a lower rate than many middle class families,"



..................juanni

TheJokker
August 06, 2010, 06:45
rich = employers
attack employers = unemployment
unemployment = bad
juanni = attack employers
juanni = bad

flopshot
August 06, 2010, 06:52
don't even start that crap. like warren buffet, if you don't have "income" you don't pay "income taxes". i wonder what they paid in capital gains, corporate income taxes and property taxes.

MtnWulf
August 06, 2010, 07:35
I find it hard to believe that Americans fall for this Marxist class warfare tactic.

86 % of ALL Federal income taxes are paid by the top 25% of INCOME earners.

97% of ALL Federal income taxes are paid by the top 50% of INCOME earners.

39%, that's Thirty Nine Percent, of ALL Federal income taxes are paid by the top 1 %, ONE PERCENT, of INCOME earners.

ONE percent pays THIRTY NINE percent of all income taxes.

The above figures are from the IRS.

The percentage Juanni quotes doesn't tell who REALLY pays taxes.

The REAL problem is the 47% of Americans who don't pay Federal income taxes. They have NO PROBLEM in increasing the taxes on the rest of us.

http://www.businessinsider.com/coincidence-47-of-americans-dont-pay-income-tax-45-think-tax-is-just-fine-2010-4

Skilter
August 06, 2010, 08:37
I agree with mtnwlf... BUT...

When you are LOSING YOUR ASS as an employer due to a bad economy (and an incompetent administration), you post LOSSES which reduces your taxable income!!!

It ain't hard to understand juanni... even for this big southern dummy.

prosecond
August 06, 2010, 08:45
Originally posted by MtnWulf
I find it hard to believe that Americans fall for this Marxist class warfare tactic.

86 % of ALL Federal income taxes are paid by the top 25% of INCOME earners.

97% of ALL Federal income taxes are paid by the top 50% of INCOME earners.

39%, that's Thirty Nine Percent, of ALL Federal income taxes are paid by the top 1 %, ONE PERCENT, of INCOME earners.

ONE percent pays THIRTY NINE percent of all income taxes.

The above figures are from the IRS.

The percentage Juanni quotes doesn't tell who REALLY pays taxes.

The REAL problem is the 47% of Americans who don't pay Federal income taxes. They have NO PROBLEM in increasing the taxes on the rest of us.



http://www.businessinsider.com/coincidence-47-of-americans-dont-pay-income-tax-45-think-tax-is-just-fine-2010-4 :bow: :bow: :bow:

juanni
August 06, 2010, 09:52
Originally posted by MtnWulf
I find it hard to believe that Americans fall for this Marxist class warfare tactic.

86 % of ALL Federal income taxes are paid by the top 25% of INCOME earners.

97% of ALL Federal income taxes are paid by the top 50% of INCOME earners.

39%, that's Thirty Nine Percent, of ALL Federal income taxes are paid by the top 1 %, ONE PERCENT, of INCOME earners.



and
"The most affluent 400 earners in 2007 -- who earned an average of more than $340 million dollars each that year -- paid only 17 percent of their income in tax, a lower rate than many middle class families,"

Where is the discrepancy?
Both are true BUT different statements.

The "most affluent 400 earners" may pay whatever percent of ALL Federal Income taxes, but they still pay only 17% of their income in tax, a lower rate than many middle class.


.............juanni

juanni
August 06, 2010, 10:09
Originally posted by flopshot
don't even start that crap. like warren buffet, if you don't have "income" you don't pay "income taxes". i wonder what they paid in capital gains, corporate income taxes and property taxes.

Capital gains are an income and taxed and payed as income taxes, so that should be included in the 17% figure.

Corporate income should not be used as compensation to individuals without being declared as income to those individuals.

Property taxes are LOCAL and not Federal.



..............juanni

davedude
August 06, 2010, 10:12
I have never received a paycheck from a poor man.

envy is a tool of criminals and is used to steal money.

Dave Dude

juanni
August 06, 2010, 10:33
Lets try a simple thought experiment.

Lets say we had a fair flat tax, which most everyone here supports.
Only 1 deduction for basic poverty level and everything above that taxed at oh say 17% for everbody, rich, middleclass etc.

Now after we did that it turned out that 50% of the income tax, higher than the current 39% was paid by the top 1% or income earners.

Would the solution be,
A. Do nothing it is a fair, even, 17% for everybody.
B. Reduce the 17% for the top 1% because they are paying too much. :p




...............juanni

flopshot
August 06, 2010, 10:37
A

juanni
August 06, 2010, 10:42
Originally posted by TheJokker
rich = employers
attack employers = unemployment
unemployment = bad
juanni = attack employers
juanni = bad

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The world is only as simple = as a simpleton views it.





.................juanni

juanni
August 06, 2010, 10:59
Originally posted by flopshot
A

Thank you for answering a simple question with a direct simple answer.
:bow: :bow: :bow:

Anyone else?


..............juanni

flopshot
August 06, 2010, 11:04
actually, i prefer The Fair Tax over a flat tax. i want the government out of the business of picking winners and losers, the elimination of the IRS and the cost of compliance.

Eric Bryant
August 06, 2010, 13:50
Originally posted by MtnWulf
86 % of ALL Federal income taxes are paid by the top 25% of INCOME earners.

The top 25% also earned 68.7% of the AGI.

97% of ALL Federal income taxes are paid by the top 50% of INCOME earners.

The top 50% earned 86.6% of the total AGI.

39%, that's Thirty Nine Percent, of ALL Federal income taxes are paid by the top 1 %, ONE PERCENT, of INCOME earners.

ONE percent pays THIRTY NINE percent of all income taxes.

That 1% also earned 22.8% of the AGI.

The percentage Juanni quotes doesn't tell who REALLY pays taxes.

And your figures don't tell who really earns the money. Nearly half the AGI is earned by the top 10%, leaving roughly half for the bottom 90%. Is it any wonder that class warfare shows up in our tax code?

The REAL problem is the 47% of Americans who don't pay Federal income taxes. They have NO PROBLEM in increasing the taxes on the rest of us.

That is part of the problem. The other part of the problem is that the bottom 50% of wage earners only take home 12.3% of the total AGI.

Sane tax policy cannot be found in a democracy unless there is also a reasonable distribution of income. Once you alienate half the voters by disengaging them from the wage-earning system, then it's only a matter of time before they start voting themselves into the pocketbooks of the minority.

flopshot
August 06, 2010, 14:01
[i]
Once you alienate half the voters by disengaging them from the wage-earning system, then it's only a matter of time before they start voting themselves into the pocketbooks of the minority. [/B]

which is exactly what The Fair Tax eliminates.

Eric Bryant
August 06, 2010, 18:08
Originally posted by flopshot
which is exactly what The Fair Tax eliminates.

The 50% AGI break point was at $32,879 in July 2009 - this group contributed 3% towards the total Federal income tax. Per the fairtax.org prebate schedule (http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/2009FairTaxPrebateSchedule.pdf), the zero-tax point ("consumption allowance") for a family of four is $29,140. Assuming that someone spends 100% of their income at this level (a fair assumption, since folks in this bracket are likely not real keen on saving), it doesn't seem that the Fair Tax changes much in this regard.

Ultimately, the way to bring more people into the tax-paying pool is to even out the income distribution. It's interesting to see how the distribution has changed over the past three decades:

Top 1% - 8.5% of AGI in 1980, 20.8% in 2000, 22.8% in 2007
Top 25% - 56.7% of AGI in 1980, 67.2% in 2000, 68.7% in 2007
Bottom 50% - 17.7% of AGI in 1980, 13% in 2000, 12.3% in 2007

Getting the income distribution closer to 1980 levels would fix many of the tax inequalities that presently exist.

TheJokker
August 07, 2010, 08:10
Originally posted by juanni


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The world is only as simple = as a simpleton views it.

.................juanni

a simpleton is one who plays both sides of the fence and pretends he is not wrong. recently you suggested that manufacturing will not return to america until the government changes its policies now you want the government to increase taxes on those who may finance a return of industry.

take a side.

Eric Bryant
August 07, 2010, 09:02
Originally posted by TheJokker
a simpleton is one who plays both sides of the fence and pretends he is not wrong.

You are making up definitions for words again:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/simpleton


sim·ple·ton /ˈsɪmpəltən/ Show Spelled[sim-puhl-tuhn]

–noun
an ignorant, foolish, or silly person.

We had tax cuts, and unfortunately we did not embrace that opportunity to cut spending correspondingly. As such, we doubled the debt during the previous administration, and this administration seems destined to do even worse. The money has been spent already and we put it on the national credit card - it's too late to start talking about future spending cuts such that we can minimize tax rates. We need to raise taxes and cut spending just to keep things from spiraling out of control. Anyone who wants to pretend that one or the other is sufficient is playing a game, or they are simply ignorant of the brutally-obvious facts.

Will this impact growth? Damn straight it will - that's what happens when we pull ahead economy activity by borrowing more than we are earning. The party's over, and yet we still think we can avoid a hangover if we can keep drinking but at a slower pace. I learned in college that this method is not sustainable; obviously, many others were not as observant.

RG Coburn
August 07, 2010, 09:12
Did it occur to anybody here,that if they didn't spend so much,they wouldn't need to collect so much? Reduce SPENDING.....

flopshot
August 07, 2010, 09:17
Originally posted by Eric Bryant


it doesn't seem that the Fair Tax changes much in this regard.



i understand that point but what The Fair Tax does is eliminates any motivation by the government to raise taxes on upper level incomes to pass it on to non tax payers since the tax rate could only be across the board. the only way a voter could vote themselves a raise is through the proposal of an increase in the prebate. with a zero net increase in revenue the simple elimination of the cost of compliance would be worth the change. not to mention the savings by firing the majority of the IRS and tax law geeks. as long as the government can take from one and give to another on an unlevel playing field we're screwed.

Eric Bryant
August 07, 2010, 19:26
Originally posted by RG Coburn
Did it occur to anybody here,that if they didn't spend so much,they wouldn't need to collect so much? Reduce SPENDING.....

Great concept. Now, transport yourself back in time about 30 years and spread the gospel, because right now it's too late to do much good.

Anyone want to calculate how long it'd take to clear the debt if we kept the current tax rates, spend only the mandated amount (plus the present Pentagon budget, since that's a fantasy which is popular 'round these parts), and put any remaining amount towards the debt? It'd be a while, for sure.

I think we should get used to the term "austerity".

TheJokker
August 08, 2010, 09:36
Originally posted by Eric Bryant


You are making up definitions for words again:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TheJokker
a simpleton is one who plays both sides of the fence and pretends he is not wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/simpleton

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sim·ple·ton /ˈsɪmpəltən/ Show Spelled[sim-puhl-tuhn]

–noun
an ignorant, foolish, or silly person.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


but it "is" ignorant, foolish or silly to play both sides of the fence.

maybe you are guilty of rigid narrow minded thinking with regards to both the meaning of words and solutions to complex problems? juanni has pointed out in another thread that our industrial base has moved offshore in response to government policies (i.e. the evil government) and reversing those policies would be required to return that manufacturing base. lowering the rate of tax might actually increase the revenues from that tax if manufacturing became more affordable in america again and capital investments now destined for asia returns.

it's not about raising taxes; it's about raising revenues. cut the fat; raise the revenue.

it's also about committing to a solution to an essential problem: rebuilding american business/jobs.

1) do whatever it takes to rebuild america business. jobs will follow.
2) rebuild the federal bureaucracy to whatever size is affordable in accordance with rule #1.

the political climate is changing dramatically and fundamentally. what was politically impossible two or three years ago is becoming imaginable. make the pledge to being pro-business and make a long term commitment to supporting pro-business change.

flopshot
August 08, 2010, 10:08
Originally posted by TheJokker
juanni has pointed out in another thread that our industrial base has moved offshore in response to government policies (i.e. the evil government) and reversing those policies would be required to return that manufacturing base. lowering the rate of tax might actually increase the revenues from that tax if manufacturing became more affordable in america again and capital investments now destined for asia returns.




the really sad thing is that it is just this simple. the left cares not for prosperity but making the majority of voters government dependents.

ggiilliiee
August 08, 2010, 12:07
government ..smoverment ...
MAYBE ...ya cant get the jobs cause ya got no skeel ...maybe the kid in china doing calculus in the 9th grade is more desirable as an employee that is 375 lb 28 year old who has only been able to kik himself in the balls on u tube and watch cars go round in a circle..at moms house .god fellas ...lose some weight back there.
375lber aint gonna be up on a scaffold welding in my company ....yer too slooooow ...or sukin up the company health care
.just cause ya cant stop shovin food down your necks ...better git wit da program ... ...if ya dont have enough integrity to take care of YOURSELF .i sure in hell wouldnt hire ya ....rude but true ......

we all doing fine out here ... .

avouris and greed are gonna drive ya over the endless sea
it will leave you drifting in the shallows ,drowning in the ocean of history

traveling the world your in ,your search is for good
but i knew youd find your soddom like ya knew ya would

using all the good people for your galley slaves

as your little boat struggles thru the warning waves ..

but you dont pay ....but youll pay tommorow ..
i dont wanna ride on this ship of fools ....

world party ..

Eric Bryant
August 08, 2010, 16:40
I'm curious as to how anyone here proposes to move jobs back to the US with "government policy" when the two biggest factors behind job losses in the past three decades are currency imbalance and wage arbitrage.

Wage arbitrage is quite easy to fix - just accept that we will have to work at an hourly rate somewhere less than the current minimum wage. This has the somewhat undesirable effect of not allowing the common man to afford housing, personal transportation, or fancy electronics. Seeing as how I like selling highly-engineered goods to the greatest number of consumers possible, I don't think I'd much care for "fixing" wage arbitrage.

The currency imbalance probably can't be fixed at this time. If we weaken the dollar to make our exports more affordable to the world, then the bond market would revolt and we'd quickly face a variety of defaults. This would kinda suck. Japan had the fiscal stability to pull off manipulation of the yen in the 80s, and China is currently doing this with devastating results. It works well when government and industry doesn't live and die by the bond market, and it works well only if a country is not a net importer. If we'd exercised some fiscal responsibility in the past three decades, we could manipulate our currency to much greater effect, and thus presently enjoy a far more competitive position. Alas, we're at least a decade beyond the point of making a meaningful change, and it's only going to get worse as our debt piles up and needs to be rolled-over on a regular basis.

So, that's where we are at. Eliminating OSHA and the EPA are the fantasy of many on the right, but is a drop in the bucket compared to the above two issues (hell, my employer voluntarily exceeds regulations in a number of environmental and safety matters either because our customers require it, or because it's simply the right and profitable thing to do).

I don't see the US returning to the standard of living we enjoyed back in the 50s and 60s - I think it's going to get much worse than that.

juanni
August 08, 2010, 20:23
Originally posted by Eric Bryant


I don't see the US returning to the standard of living we enjoyed back in the 50s and 60s - I think it's going to get much worse than that.

Yep. And thanks for supporting my position with the facts, while I was on the road this weekend. :whiskey: :whiskey: :whiskey:

I don't don't see where any here have factually supported the popular belief and El Rushbo broadcast "the rich are being soaked".

It is simply a lie, :uhoh: used to manipulate the ignorant.


...............juanni

juanni
August 08, 2010, 20:40
Originally posted by TheJokker


a simpleton is one who plays both sides of the fence and pretends he is not wrong. recently you suggested that manufacturing will not return to america until the government changes its policies now you want the government to increase taxes on those who may finance a return of industry.

take a side.

Poor Status Quo, Big Govt, Big Military Jokker, don't increase taxes on the most wealthy who are paying less as a percentage of their income than some of the middleclass because they "may finance a return of industry". :rolleyes:

Was that your best shot?


..............juanni

evan price
August 09, 2010, 06:18
17%, that's what, close to one out of seven? Sounds good enough to me. Can't solve all the problems by expecting to take more and more and more from the folks that actually provide the jobs and industry. They took the risks. They make the bucks. What's wrong with that? Why is it that the American Dream of being able to start with nothing and wind up richer than Croesus sounds great to everybody- until they realize they are not the ones winding up rich, then they start gabbing about wanting more.

Start making more folks pay taxes instead of taking more from the few that do. Or provide less services. Simple as that.
Chop entitlements. You want to spend .gov money on programs? Fine, work programs. There's weeds to cut, graffiti to paint over, trash to pickup, roads to patch. Welfare checks should come with a urine test requirement for drugs, and only be given after the recipient puts in a week's work. You don't wanna work, then find a way to eat your Nike shoes.

Screw it- the Chinese use slave labor to make Nike shoes for eight cents a pair. Then Nike sells them to urban thugs for $150 a pair.

When's the last time you saw people without shoes?

Ever been overseas and seen really poor people?

Everybody wants more, more, more. Sometime you got to stop. You can't run an economy based on industry having continuous growth in perpetuity. It's a pyramid scam.

TheJokker
August 09, 2010, 06:45
Originally posted by juanni


Poor Status Quo, Big Govt, Big Military Jokker, don't increase taxes on the most wealthy who are paying less as a percentage of their income than some of the middleclass because they "may finance a return of industry". :rolleyes:

Was that your best shot?


..............juanni

playing both sides of the fence again…

you had the opportunity to oppose the democrats and their big government plans in 2008 but you choose instead to oppose the republicans. you made the false claim that there is no difference between the two parties when clearly there is an ideological difference. i have been steadfast in opposing liberal democrats.

pick a side...

TheJokker
August 09, 2010, 06:58
Originally posted by Eric Bryant
I'm curious as to how anyone here proposes to move jobs back to the US with "government policy" when the two biggest factors behind job losses in the past three decades are currency imbalance and wage arbitrage.

Wage arbitrage is quite easy to fix - just accept that we will have to work at an hourly rate somewhere less than the current minimum wage. This has the somewhat undesirable effect of not allowing the common man to afford housing, personal transportation, or fancy electronics. Seeing as how I like selling highly-engineered goods to the greatest number of consumers possible, I don't think I'd much care for "fixing" wage arbitrage.

The currency imbalance probably can't be fixed at this time. If we weaken the dollar to make our exports more affordable to the world, then the bond market would revolt and we'd quickly face a variety of defaults. This would kinda suck. Japan had the fiscal stability to pull off manipulation of the yen in the 80s, and China is currently doing this with devastating results. It works well when government and industry doesn't live and die by the bond market, and it works well only if a country is not a net importer. If we'd exercised some fiscal responsibility in the past three decades, we could manipulate our currency to much greater effect, and thus presently enjoy a far more competitive position. Alas, we're at least a decade beyond the point of making a meaningful change, and it's only going to get worse as our debt piles up and needs to be rolled-over on a regular basis.

So, that's where we are at. Eliminating OSHA and the EPA are the fantasy of many on the right, but is a drop in the bucket compared to the above two issues (hell, my employer voluntarily exceeds regulations in a number of environmental and safety matters either because our customers require it, or because it's simply the right and profitable thing to do).

I don't see the US returning to the standard of living we enjoyed back in the 50s and 60s - I think it's going to get much worse than that.

you are exactly right with regards to the source of the problem but this is not just an american problem but rather global. it will happen or the economy of the entire world will collapse into a new dark age. insead of "not seeing it" you need to open your mind to "seeing it". think outside the box. new unexplored possibilites will be exploited by some and new solutions will be developed by still more. these are times that produce great men.

juanni
August 09, 2010, 07:11
Originally posted by TheJokker


playing both sides of the fence again…

you had the opportunity to oppose the democrats and their big government plans in 2008 but you choose instead to oppose the republicans. you made the false claim that there is no difference between the two parties when clearly there is an ideological difference. i have been steadfast in opposing liberal democrats.

pick a side...

Oh I picked my side a long time ago of small limited govt, supporting the constitution, ending deficit spending, ending public and corporate welfare, ending the FED, sound money backed by something real and cutting our ever expanding, unsustainable military empire down to defending the country.

The demos, the repubs and YOU are all on the other side of that fence.




...................juanni

cowbilly
August 09, 2010, 20:53
Has anyone noticed that everyone is wrong except juanni? Accodring to juanni at least.

17% of 340 million is 57.8 million. That is a lot in taxes.

17% of 100K is 17K. Pretty big freakin difference.

The rich pay more no matter what. We can argue rates and fairness all day. When people who pay no taxes stop getting $2-7K checks from the IRS, I may entertain this idea that the rich are getting over. All this rich envy is getting old and devisive.

Someone will always have way more money, even in socialist/communist states. Capitalism is as fair as it gets in the real world. If class warfare is Obama's agenda, then it seems to be working well.

juanni
August 09, 2010, 21:45
Originally posted by cowbilly
Has anyone noticed that everyone is wrong except juanni? Accodring to juanni at least.

17% of 340 million is 57.8 million. That is a lot in taxes.

17% of 100K is 17K. Pretty big freakin difference.


17% is 17%, and the rich, at least the top 400 aren't getting soaked.

I bet many taxpayers that are not in the top 400 earners are paying MORE than 17%. :uhoh:

Curious that so many rush to defend the wealthy, it isn't like they are not being well defended by the political class that they have purchased. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


.................juanni

evan price
August 10, 2010, 05:13
Originally posted by juanni


17% is 17%, and the rich, at least the top 400 aren't getting soaked.

I bet many taxpayers that are not in the top 400 earners are paying MORE than 17%. :uhoh:

Curious that so many rush to defend the wealthy, it isn't like they are not being well defended by the political class that they have purchased. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


.................juanni

WTF is it with you?
Why do the top 400 need "getting soaked"?

17% is 17%. That's 17% more than almost half of Americans pay right now.
You want to lay flat tax out there, well fine- how about 17% flat tax for everybody. One in seven was good enough for the God of Abraham, it should be just fine for Uncle Sugar.

I swear Juanni, it sounds more and more like you have Mao's Little Red Book beside your keyboard when you write this shyte?

Some people have more. Some people have less. Jealous, much, Comrade Juanni? :rolleyes:

TheJokker
August 10, 2010, 06:48
Originally posted by juanni


Oh I picked my side a long time ago of small limited govt, supporting the constitution, ending deficit spending, ending public and corporate welfare, ending the FED, sound money backed by something real and cutting our ever expanding, unsustainable military empire down to defending the country.

The demos, the repubs and YOU are all on the other side of that fence.

...................juanni

from my point of view you are a big-government liberal. you talk the conservative talk but you walk the statist walk. your actions speak louder than words...

the constitution you claim to support dictates that majority rules. you refuse to join with a conservative majority because you don't play well with other conservatives all the while obama and the democrats are creating a deficit that exceeds all federal deficits combined. when you won't lift a finger to fight for the reform you "claim" to support you become part of the problem...

why are your "solutions" shared by liberal democrats? why does your "quacking" sound like obama?

Nomad, 2nd
August 10, 2010, 08:45
Originally posted by TheJokker



the constitution you claim to support dictates that majority rules.


Ummm, actually no.

We are NOT a Democracy, but a Democratic Republic.

Democracy:
2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Democratic Republic:
Sheep having Veto power.


This is a DANGERIOUS myth which is being INTENTIONALLY spread.

FIGHT IT!

shlomo
August 10, 2010, 08:46
Be interesting to see the look on some of your kissers if you get your minds around this:

http://hiwaay.net/~becraft/RUMLTAXES.html

juanni
August 10, 2010, 10:07
Originally posted by evan price


WTF is it with you?
Why do the top 400 need "getting soaked"?

17% is 17%. That's 17% more than almost half of Americans pay right now.
You want to lay flat tax out there, well fine- how about 17% flat tax for everybody. One in seven was good enough for the God of Abraham, it should be just fine for Uncle Sugar.

I swear Juanni, it sounds more and more like you have Mao's Little Red Book beside your keyboard when you write this shyte?

Some people have more. Some people have less. Jealous, much, Comrade Juanni? :rolleyes:

Such emotionalism. :rolleyes:

You need to learn to read, I never said we need to soak the rich.
I said that the rich being soaked is a lie. ;)

Perhaps if you spent more time thinking about what I actually wrote instead of how you are going to work, the bible, Mao's writing and comrade into your posts it would help. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:



................juanni

juanni
August 10, 2010, 10:19
Originally posted by TheJokker


from my point of view you are a big-government liberal. you talk the conservative talk but you walk the statist walk. your actions speak louder than words...

the constitution you claim to support dictates that majority rules. you refuse to join with a conservative majority because you don't play well with other conservatives all the while obama and the democrats are creating a deficit that exceeds all federal deficits combined. when you won't lift a finger to fight for the reform you "claim" to support you become part of the problem...


Only in your upside down world is supporting Big Govt, Big Spending, Big Military, Deficit Spending, Corporate Welfare, Crony Capitalism, Fiat Money and Bailouts.... moving the country back to Constitutionally designed small limited govt. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Originally posted by TheJokker

why are your "solutions" shared by liberal democrats? why does your "quacking" sound like obama?

Funny, I never hear liberal democrats or Obama talking about slashing govt, slashing spending, ending the military empire, ending the FED, ending bailouts etc.....
What channel are you listening to Kenneth?


..............juanni

evan price
August 11, 2010, 04:36
Originally posted by juanni
You need to learn to read, I never said we need to soak the rich.
I said that the rich being soaked is a lie. ;) ................juanni

These were YOUR WORDS, not mine:

17% is 17%, and the rich, at least the top 400 aren't getting soaked.

I bet many taxpayers that are not in the top 400 earners are paying MORE than 17%.

Why do you feel we need to soak the rich?
If you are advocating a FLAT TAX, which is fair to everyone, why not 17% to everyone? It would be the FAIREST solution, right? If that 39% who pay NOTHING paid 17%, it would be just as fair as making the rich pay 17%, right?

One third of the US population- that's about 110,000,000 people- if they each paid $300 into the country, that's $33,000,000,000! 33 BILLION dollars.

That's 17% of $1800!

TheJokker
August 11, 2010, 06:36
Originally posted by Nomad, 2nd



Ummm, actually no.

We are NOT a Democracy, but a Democratic Republic.

Democracy:
2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Democratic Republic:
Sheep having Veto power.


This is a DANGERIOUS myth which is being INTENTIONALLY spread.

FIGHT IT!

reality: america is a two party system and has been since the days of the founding father. parties are comprised of similar factions joining together to capture 50+% of the voting population. if your party fails to capture the majority the "other" guy sets the agenda.

TheJokker
August 11, 2010, 06:45
Originally posted by juanni


Only in your upside down world is supporting Big Govt, Big Spending, Big Military, Deficit Spending, Corporate Welfare, Crony Capitalism, Fiat Money and Bailouts.... moving the country back to Constitutionally designed small limited govt. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:



Funny, I never hear liberal democrats or Obama talking about slashing govt, slashing spending, ending the military empire, ending the FED, ending bailouts etc.....
What channel are you listening to Kenneth?
..............juanni

in 2008 you refused to join with other conservatives and oppose obama and the liberals. how did that work out for shrinking government and spending? the consequences for you actions is exactly opposite the outcome you "claim" to support. that's the difference between you and i. you are a phony conservative who won't lift a finger to advance of the principles you claim to support.

you talk the talk but you do NOT walk the walk. you walk like a liberal...

juanni
August 11, 2010, 07:04
Originally posted by TheJokker


in 2008 you refused to join with other conservatives and oppose obama and the liberals. how did that work out for shrinking government and spending? the consequences for you actions is exactly opposite the outcome you "claim" to support. that's the difference between you and i. you are a phony conservative who won't lift a finger to advance of the principles you claim to support.

you talk the talk but you do NOT walk the walk. you walk like a liberal...

How did that work out? About the same as if Johnny "TARP" McCain and Bitch "I like 97% of the demos budget" Mc Connell would have done.

Certainly not slashing/ending Big Govt, Big Spending, Big Military, Deficit Spending, Corporate Welfare, Crony Capitalism, Fiat Money and Bailouts.... moving the country back to Constitutionally designed small limited govt.

But then that isn't what your really want, now is it Jokker. :uhoh:


.............juanni

juanni
August 11, 2010, 07:13
Originally posted by evan price


These were YOUR WORDS, not mine:
17% is 17%, and the rich, at least the top 400 aren't getting soaked.
I bet many taxpayers that are not in the top 400 earners are paying MORE than 17%.


Yes they are, how do you get "Why do you feel we need to soak the rich?" out of that?

If the top 400 earners are paying only 17% and a earner far lower on on the scale is paying the same percent or more, how are the rich being soaked?

Perhaps a parent or older sibling can help you with your reading comprehension. :rofl:


.............juanni

flopshot
August 11, 2010, 07:27
this conversation is useless if it continues to focus on "income" tax.
total tax liability is the real issue. don't get me started on earned income tax credits.

ggiilliiee
August 11, 2010, 08:46
dude hes comp tek ...in a state where they have trouble "counting"...
he needs a choker cable on his ass for a few weeks ...

TheJokker
August 12, 2010, 06:49
Originally posted by juanni


How did that work out? About the same as if Johnny "TARP" McCain and Bitch "I like 97% of the demos budget" Mc Connell would have done.

Certainly not slashing/ending Big Govt, Big Spending, Big Military, Deficit Spending, Corporate Welfare, Crony Capitalism, Fiat Money and Bailouts.... moving the country back to Constitutionally designed small limited govt.

But then that isn't what your really want, now is it Jokker. :uhoh:


.............juanni

mccain ran on a platform of freezing the federal deficit.

please educate us on how government can be reformed by opposing the republicans and ignoring the democrats juanni? how can reform occur? what is your plan?

most americans with half a brain understand that the out of control spending comes from the liberals in the democratic party. most americans with half a brain see socialist policies like obamacare coming from liberals in the democratic party. most americans with half a brain understand it is liberals in the democratic party that is blocking immigration reform. most americans with half a brain have learned not to listen to people like you.

you advocated abandoning the republicans in 2008. you got your wish. obama is everything you hoped for...

enjoy...

MtnWulf
August 12, 2010, 07:32
Another post from Denniger at Market Forum

http://market-ticker.org/archives/2572-How-Did-The-Word-Ponzi-Get-Into-The-MSM.html

And a quote:

For this reason, irrespective of how you feel about the class-warfare game that many play with "tax the rich!" (even though the "rich" pay the majority of all federal income taxes) I can tell you that such a strategy is doomed to fail. Indeed, The richest 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of all (yes, including FICA and Medicare) federal taxes, which is more than the entire bottom 95% pay - even with the Bush "tax cuts."

Many people say that the rich should pay "their fair share." To those I retort: What is their "fair share", when the top 1% already pay 40% of EVERY tax dollar collected, and the top 5% pay 60% of it? Are you truly going to argue that unless you're super-rich you shouldn't pay anything at all?

Those who call to "tax the rich" are being Marxist stooges.

The true problem is GOVERNMENT, not people making money.

wileycsg
August 12, 2010, 07:33
Originally posted by TheJokker


mccain ran on a platform of freezing the federal deficit.

please educate us on how government can be reformed by opposing the republicans and ignoring the democrats juanni? how can reform occur? what is your plan?

most americans with half a brain understand that the out of control spending comes from the liberals in the democratic party. most americans with half a brain see socialist policies like obamacare coming from liberals in the democratic party. most americans with half a brain understand it is liberals in the democratic party that is blocking immigration reform. most americans with half a brain have learned not to listen to people like you.

you advocated abandoning the republicans in 2008. you got your wish. obama is everything you hoped for...

enjoy...

Well, you certainly fit the criteria of having half a brain! :rofl: Your biggest problem is that think that we're stuck voting for whatever the two parties offer us... take it or leave it. How about, instead of being a cheerleader, you realize that you're supposed to be a citizen and that they are supposed to do as the citizens want.

BTW, how come you never want to discuss the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act?

juanni
August 12, 2010, 08:44
Originally posted by wileycsg

BTW, how come you never want to discuss the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act?

Or the $700 TARP Bailout.
Or not letting GM die.
Or heaping F & Fs $6 TRILLION plus ponzi scheme onto the taxpayers.
Or how McCain has been in DC since Moses and has accomplished nothing, except the poorly conceived Campaign Reform which the SC crapped on.
Or 8 years of Wide Open Borders and next to no immigration raids and prosecuting of Employers.
Or how for 8 years there were no investigations and prosecutions by the AG for financial fraud even when people were pointing out Bernie M. scams left and right.

Could go on, but why?
Jokker's 1/2 of a brain has been severly damaged by overconsumption of the GOP's toxic Kool Aid.



..................juanni